Korea has not been the only battleground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba and Cyprus, and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called "wars of liberation," to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training.

John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the U.S.

Remarks at West Point to the Graduating Class of the U.S. Military Academy, June 06, 1962

Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"There is something in the human spirit that will survive and prevail - a tiny and brilliant light burning in the heart of man that will not go out no matter how dark the world becomes."

– Leo Tolstoy

"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."

– Blaine Pascal

“Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”

– Audre Lorde

1. As Putin Girds for Protracted War, a New Russian Elite Emerges: Meet the Princelings

2. SOF Week 2024: Ten Innovative Companies to Watch

3. Japan, Philippines Finalize Largest Maritime Security Pact Days After Chinese CG, Militia Aggression In SCS

4. Deconstructing the Hybrid War Waged on America’s Campuses

5. Why I’m Skipping My 50th Reunion at Yale

6. Marines Stop 2 Jordanian Nationals From Attempting to Breach Quantico Marine Base

7. U.S. Fears Undersea Cables Are Vulnerable to Espionage From Chinese Repair Ships

8. The latest veterans, civilians inducted into Special Forces regiment

9. Did colleges give away the store in deals with student protesters?

10. Teledyne FLIR’s ‘new’ Rogue 1 loitering munition has been under SOCOM contract for two years

11. US Special Forces open permanent base in Poland

12. Which Makes Better Soldiers: DEI or Assimilation?

13. The ‘America First’ Chaos Caucus Is Forcing a Moment of Truth

14. Here’s how the US Army’s multidomain task force is contributing to AUKUS

15. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping take radically different approaches to warfare

16. As American global hegemony ends, multi-alignment rises

17. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping Embrace at Beijing, but Will This Marriage of Convenience Blossom Into a Romance?

1. As Putin Girds for Protracted War, a New Russian Elite Emerges: Meet the Princelings

A target list for the influence campaign?

Excerpts:

It’s a matter of survival of the elite clans, and therefore it’s a race of loyalties,” said Andrei Kolesnikov, Moscow-based senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

Elevating relatives and allies isn’t new for Putin’s regime. What is novel is that in addition to doling out lucrative business positions to acolytes, loyalists are being given prominent posts in government. “Now the government is heading back towards becoming the biggest business in town, so the older scions of these dynasties are realizing that, in fact, that’s where you place your kids,” Galeotti said.

One of the most eye-catching shake-ups revolved around the Patrushev family. Putin replaced his oldest ally and confidant, the elder Patrushev, at the helm of the Security Council with Shoigu.

In name, the move amounts to a demotion for former KGB officer Patrushev—who will now be a Kremlin aide overseeing shipbuilding—but he retains access to Putin, analysts say. “Patrushev’s move is an attempt to keep him in the system but more under control,” said Galeotti.

In tandem, Putin elevated Patrushev’s son to become a deputy prime minister from his position for the past almost six years as agriculture minister.

As Putin Girds for Protracted War, a New Russian Elite Emerges: Meet the Princelings

Reshuffle at start of president’s fifth term promoted offspring of his closest associates, ultraloyalists

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/as-putin-girds-for-protracted-war-a-new-russian-elite-emerges-meet-the-princelings-1b3f49b4?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

By Georgi Kantchev

May 18, 2024 8:00 am ET

Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting with his new cabinet on Tuesday at the Kremlin. PHOTO: VYACHESLAV PROKOFYEV/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Russian President Vladimir Putin has promoted a new crop of officials, some with blood ties to his existing inner circle, as he assembles a next generation of lieutenants committed both to his war in Ukraine and the Kremlin’s wider ideological conflict with the West.

The ascension of the so-called princelings—including the sons of two of his closest confidants, and his former bodyguard who claims to have saved the president from a brown bear attack—is designed to gird the increasingly autocratic and war-driven system for the long haul.

The Byzantine power structure governing Russia’s political elite is notoriously opaque, even to seasoned Kremlinologists. But the latest reshuffle is emblematic of the highly personalized and dynastic power structure Putin has crafted over his more than two-decade rule, observers say.

“There is an assumption now in Russia that the Ukraine war will last years and that it’s just one front in a wider war with a hostile West,” said Mark Galeotti, director of Mayak Intelligence and a longtime observer of Russian politics. “Therefore, what we’re seeing is preparations for the long term, and this is reflected in the rise of the princelings—bringing in a new, loyal political generation bit by bit.”

The Kremlin’s calculations also mirror concerns mounting in the West that the Russian invasion, now in its third year, could degenerate into a protracted war of attrition.

As Putin was inaugurated for his fifth term as Russian president earlier this month, the subsequent reshuffle rewarded family ties and longstanding associates. Those who landed promotions include Dmitry Patrushev, whose father, Nikolai Patrushev, put in motion the assassination of Wagner’s mutinous leader last year, and Boris Kovalchuk, the son of the man described by the U.S. Treasury Department as Putin’s banker.

Putin also replaced his longtime ally Sergei Shoigu at the top of the Defense Ministry with Andrei Belousov, a macroeconomist, a maneuver that underlines the shift in the Kremlin’s mindset. When Moscow invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it planned for a lightning strike that would be over in days. Now, there is a growing realization in Russia that a long war requires industrial as much as military might.

Newly appointed Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov at the cabinet meeting this week. PHOTO: VYACHESLAV PROKOFYEV/KREMLIN POOL/ZUMA PRESS

Russia’s new deputy prime minister, Dmitry Patrushev. PHOTO: DMITRY ASTAKHOV/ZUMA PRESS

“Putin’s appointments show that he is ready to wage war for a long time, but he understands that you need to be more equipped in terms of resources and how to manage them,” said Abbas Gallyamov, a former Putin speechwriter-turned-government critic.

The Kremlin didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Putin’s reorganization is also designed to ward off threats from Russia’s elite by elevating their offspring or their allies and letting them compete for second-tier power. The president would then be able to assume his preferred role as arbiter and cement his superiority, analysts say.

“It’s a matter of survival of the elite clans, and therefore it’s a race of loyalties,” said Andrei Kolesnikov, Moscow-based senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

Elevating relatives and allies isn’t new for Putin’s regime. What is novel is that in addition to doling out lucrative business positions to acolytes, loyalists are being given prominent posts in government. “Now the government is heading back towards becoming the biggest business in town, so the older scions of these dynasties are realizing that, in fact, that’s where you place your kids,” Galeotti said.

One of the most eye-catching shake-ups revolved around the Patrushev family. Putin replaced his oldest ally and confidant, the elder Patrushev, at the helm of the Security Council with Shoigu.

In name, the move amounts to a demotion for former KGB officer Patrushev—who will now be a Kremlin aide overseeing shipbuilding—but he retains access to Putin, analysts say. “Patrushev’s move is an attempt to keep him in the system but more under control,” said Galeotti.

In tandem, Putin elevated Patrushev’s son to become a deputy prime minister from his position for the past almost six years as agriculture minister.

The younger Patrushev, 46, a former banker and skilled administrator and technocrat, took over the agriculture portfolio as Russia surpassed the U.S. as the world’s biggest wheat exporter.

But Western sanctions triggered by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine dented the domestic industry, which had grown dependent on supplies of farm equipment from the West. That led to galloping egg-price inflation, which rose around 60% annually in December. Putin pinned the blame on the government, prompting a mea culpa from the agriculture minister, who said that he “needed to work better” and asked for “one more chance.”

In his new position, Deputy Prime Minister Patrushev will retain oversight of the agriculture sector. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Alexei Dyumin, Putin’s former bodyguard PHOTO: GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/KREMLIN POOL/ZUMA PRESS

Nikolai Patrushev, former secretary of Russia’s Security Council, will now be an aide overseeing shipbuilding. PHOTO: MIKHAIL TERESHCHENKO/ZUMA PRESS

Putin’s former bodyguard and occasional ice hockey partner Alexei Dyumin, the 51-year-old governor of the Tula region south of Moscow, returns to the president’s side as an aide overseeing the defense industry.

In Dyumin’s telling, while guarding the president at a mountain lodge he frightened off a large brown bear that stalked the retreat, firing shots at the animal’s feet to scare it away.

A former officer at Russia’s military intelligence agency known as the GRU, Dyumin was also involved in Moscow’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and soon after became deputy defense minister. Dyumin didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The younger Patrushev and Dyumin have long been touted by Kremlinologists as possible successors to Putin, who turns 72 later this year. But analysts also say that the president is unlikely to move aside soon. A change in the constitution in 2020 allows him to hold office until 2036, making talk of succession premature, they add.

What the flurry of appointments is pointing toward instead is a drive to inject the system with the technocratic expertise necessary to navigate a prolonged period of conflict.

Yuri Kovalchuk, who the U.S. Treasury has described as ‘Putin’s banker.’ PHOTO: PRESS POOL/REUTERS

“Putin seeks to balance between the hawks and the technocrats,” Gallyamov said. “The technocrats aren’t antiwar of course, but they are looking at ways to adequately manage the situation.”

“They think that if we go on like this, the system might collapse just like the Soviet Union did,” he said.

Another son of one of Putin’s tightknit circle to be vaulted into a top position is Boris Kovalchuk. The 46-year-old becomes head of the Audit Chamber, an influential body monitoring state spending in the latest go-round. A lawyer by training, he has worked at Russia’s atomic-energy giant Rosatom and until recently as the head of energy company Inter RAO. His media mogul father Yuri, one of a tiny number to see the president in person during periods of pandemic isolation, controls a vast network of pro-Kremlin outlets.

Boris Kovalchuk didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Other notable promotions linked to Putin’s close circle include Denis Manturov, widely seen as a protégé of Sergei Chemezov, longtime ally of the president and head of arms conglomerate Rostec. Manturov becomes first deputy prime minister overseeing the military-industrial complex. And last month, Irina Podnosova, a university classmate of Putin in the 1970s, was appointed as the new chair of Russia’s Supreme Court.

Neither Manturov nor Podnosova responded to a request for comment.

“It is clear that family ties and working with Putin all play a role in an official’s career,” said Konstantin Kalachev, a political analyst and former Kremlin adviser. “The formation of the elite class happens like in old Russia where lineage, like the boyars, and service to the state determine nobility. Belonging to the right clan is a guarantee for the future.”

Kate Vtorygina contributed to this article.

Write to Georgi Kantchev at georgi.kantchev@wsj.com

2. SOF Week 2024: Ten Innovative Companies to Watch

SOF Week 2024: Ten Innovative Companies to Watch

strategycentral.io

SOF Week 2024: Ten Innovative Companies to Watch

At SOF Week 2024, over 500 companies showcased their innovative technologies and solutions that are transforming the field of special operations. As an annual event, SOF Week serves as a platform for the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community to come together and collaborate. It supplies an opportunity for professionals in the field, policymakers, and other stakeholders to engage in meaningful discussions, share insights, and explore innovative technologies and ideas.

Of the hundreds or companies that took part, we selected ten that stood out from the crowd based on their potential to deliver game-changing capabilities to the SOF enterprise. For 2024, the ten companies to watch are as follows:

Anduril : Anduril’s AI and autonomous systems are crucial for SOF as they provide advanced situational awareness and operational effectiveness. Their technology supports counter-unmanned systems efforts, delivering transformative technology to address rapidly evolving unmanned threats.
Boeing: Boeing’s experience in aerospace and defense brings advanced technologies and platforms that support a wide range of SOF missions. Their work includes aircraft, vehicle, and equipment maintenance, and critical infrastructure support, which are essential for SOF readiness.

Boston Dynamics : Boston Dynamics’ robotics technology is vital for SOF as their robots, like Spot and Atlas, can navigate challenging terrains for reconnaissance and logistics support, enhancing the mobility and adaptability of SOF in various environments.

Lockheed Martin : Lockheed Martin provides high-tech solutions that are instrumental for SOF, including logistics support services and maintenance of special operations aircraft, ground vehicles, weaponry, and electronics equipment, ensuring mission readiness.

QinetiQ US: QinetiQ US offers defense and security technology that enhances SOF capabilities, especially in robotics and unmanned systems. Their solutions support the U.S. Army’s modernization efforts to address near-peer adversaries.

Jacobs: Jacobs provides a range of services and solutions in aerospace and technology that support the strategic and operational excellence of SOF missions, including IT service management processes and performance enhancement.
Palantir Technologies : Palantir’s big data analytics software enables SOF to integrate, manage, and analyze vast amounts of information for intelligence and operational planning, providing a competitive advantage in various phases of competition.
Sierra Nevada Corporation: Sierra Nevada Corporation’s electronic warfare and aircraft modification capabilities deliver solutions that enhance the operational readiness and effectiveness of SOF, ensuring warfighters have the advantage in conflict situations.
Shield AI : Shield AI develops AI-driven autonomous systems, including drones that can operate in contested environments without GPS or communications, providing critical intelligence and support to SOF in conflict areas.

Skydio: Skydio specializes in autonomous drones that offer advanced UAVs for situational awareness and operational safety, allowing SOF to gain a common operating picture for enhanced decision-making in complex environments.

There were many, many innovative companies present at SOF week, but it was impossible to list them all here. Overall, there were many companies that showed exceptional capabilities in driving innovation, both in terms of their products and the value they deliver. Their commitment to pushing the boundaries of what is possible and their ability to create innovation and set them apart as leaders in their respective industries. Stay tuned over the coming months as we continue to dive deeper into technology and explore its implications for military strategy and special operations.

#OperationalExcellence

3. Japan, Philippines Finalize Largest Maritime Security Pact Days After Chinese CG, Militia Aggression In SCS

The actions of China (and Russia, Iran, and north Korea) are going to continue to drive like minded democracies together and form stronger relationships than will ever be found among the axis of dictators. This is one aspect of political warfare that Kennan envisioned:

"They range from such overt actions as political alliances, economic measures (as ERP), and “white” propaganda..."

4. Understanding the concept of political warfare, we should also recognize that there are two major types of political warfare—one overt and the other covert. Both, from their basic nature, should be directed and coordinated by the Department of State. Overt operations are, of course, the traditional policy activities of any foreign office enjoying positive leadership, whether or not they are recognized as political warfare. Covert operations are traditional in many European chancelleries but are relatively unfamiliar to this Government.

5. Having assumed greater international responsibilities than ever before in our history and having been engaged by the full might of the Kremlin’s political warfare, we cannot afford to leave unmobilized our resources for covert political warfare. We cannot afford in the future, in perhaps more serious political crises, to scramble into impromptu covert operations [1 line of source text not declassified].

Japan, Philippines Finalize Largest Maritime Security Pact Days After Chinese CG, Militia Aggression In SCS

By Ritu Sharma -

May 18, 2024

eurasiantimes.com

Home Asia Pacific

When China sent dozens of coast guard and maritime militia vessels to block a civilian protest flotilla from the Philippines, it wasn’t only a show of strength but also a demonstration of how difficult it would be for weaker navies to stand up to Beijing’s naval might. Two days later, the Philippines and Japan finalized their largest maritime security project till now.

India-China Face-Off: PLA Readies High-Altitude Rocket Facility; Indian Army Sets MRO Unit At Dizzying Heights

Under the project, Tokyo will fund the construction of five large patrol ships for the Philippines Coast Guard. Manila’s resistance to China’s belligerence in the South China Sea has become the face of the world’s open Indo-Pacific policy.

Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs Enrique Manalo and Japanese Ambassador to the Philippines Enzo Kazuya exchanged notes on the third phase of the Maritime Safety Capacity Improvement Project (MSCIP) during a ceremony today in Manila.

The Philippine government approved the project in 2023 to augment the capability of the Philippine Coast Guard to “respond to threats and incidents within the country’s maritime jurisdiction” with a focus on securing “important sea lines of communication in the West Philippine Sea, Sulu-Celebes Seas, and the Philippine Sea” according to a National Economic and Development Authority release.

The US $507 million project is funded by an Official Development Aid loan from the Japan International Cooperation Agency. Around $425 million will be utilized in constructing five 97-meter-long multi-mission response vessels (MRRV) and a five-year integrated logistics support package.

The patrol vessels are expected to be delivered between 2027 and 2028.

In 2023, Japan’s coast guard, the US, and the Philippines held trilateral maritime exercises in the South China Sea. It was the first such maneuver between them, as concern has been growing about China’s aggressive moves in the region.

Japan has already transferred two vessels – BRP Teresa Magbanua (MRRV-9701) and BRP Melchora Aquino (MRRV-9702) under the second phase of MSCIP. The ships were constructed at Mitsubishi Shipbuilding’s Shimonoseki Shipyard. Based on the Japan Coast Guard’s Kunigami class, the Teresa Magbanua class weighs slightly more at 2,260 GT and has a hangar for a single helicopter.

Described as “capital ships” in a Philippine Coast Guard release, the patrol vessels are among the most modern and largest in its fleet. Most active Philippine Coast Guard vessels, especially in the South China Sea, are of Japanese origin under the MSCIP.

Since 2013, Tokyo has provided loans for 12 patrol ships and other support initiatives, such as training and logistical assistance.

Philippine ties with the US and Japan have gained traction recently as the Philippine government became increasingly vocal about China’s conduct in the region. Manila has repeatedly highlighted large numbers of suspected militia lingering near Philippine-held features in the disputed Spratly Islands. China maintains the actions of its coast guard are legal and in its waters.

The Philippines Coast Guard has 62 patrol vessels. Notable among these vessels is the BRP Pampanga, equipped with secure communication systems, a helideck, underwater remotely operated vehicles, and high-speed rubber boats. The PCG operates four support ships for logistics, search and rescue missions, and 469 auxiliary boats.

In contrast, the Chinese Coast Guard is the largest in the world in terms of the number of ships and dwarfs the navies of the country’s regional neighbors combined.

The Chinese Coast Guard operates close to over 1,275 hulls while defending “China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.” However, over the years, the white hull operators have started operating in the “gray zone, ” posing a significant security challenge in the Indo-Pacific.

The Chinese Coast Guard has 225 ships of over 500 tons capable of operating offshore and additional vessels confined to closer waters. China possesses two of the world’s largest coast guard ships, each weighing 10,000 tons at full load.

Japan’s Changing Strategic Calculus

According to Manila-based Geopolitical Analyst Don McLain Gill, this maritime security investment by Tokyo into the Philippines is in line with its 2023 National Security Strategy (NSS). NSS, adopted on December 16, 2022, outlines the country’s approach to safeguarding its security and stability.

The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) accused China of shadowing and harassing two ships

The NSS unequivocally identifies China as “the greatest strategic challenge” facing Japan. This recognition reflects concerns about China’s assertiveness in the region and its evolving strategic relationship with Russia.

Japan is closely monitoring China’s rising belligerence toward Taiwan. A key concern is the possibility of Chinese aggression spilling over into nearby Japanese territory, including the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands (which Japan controls and claims).

In short, Japan’s NSS emphasizes the need to address China’s actions, North Korea’s threats, and regional stability. It reflects Tokyo’s commitment to ensure its security and peace in the international community.

“The willingness of Tokyo to play a larger role in the Philippines’ security capabilities is a reflection of Japan’s latest National Security Strategy. The NSS seeks to illustrate Japan as a key security provider in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, this more emphasized security-driven turn also reflects Tokyo’s realization of the need to do more to ensure the stability of the region amidst growing revisionist and expansionist forces, particularly China and North Korea.”

World’s Most Diverse Fighter Fleet? With Rafale, F-15EX, Su-30, KF-21 In Kitty, TNI-AU Gets Final Batch Of Super Hercules

While the Philippines has been aggressively unveiling the tactics of the Chinese Coast Guard vessels, which are often accompanied by fishing vessels, Japan is another country being targeted by its aggressive maneuvers.

China operates the world’s largest fishing fleet, which has become known as a Maritime militia because it acts at the behest of the Chinese government.

China and Japan are entangled in a dispute over the Senaku Islands and the broader dispute over the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary in the East China Sea.

It is part of Beijing’s strategy to expand control over the East China Sea. Since 2012, China has been persistently trying to unilaterally change the status quo around the Senkaku Islands, which are administered by Japan but also claimed by China and Taiwan.

CHINA COAST GUARDS

Chinese Coast Guard vessels operate almost daily in the contiguous zone, which extends for 12 nautical miles beyond the territorial sea. These Chinese ships intrude into the territorial sea around the Senkakus at a frequency of about three times per month.

Chinese coast guard vessels harass Japanese fishing boats operating near the Senkaku Islands. In one instance, Chinese vessels sailed on a Japanese fishing boat’s tail for 27 hours and came as close as 40-50 meters from its stern.

The countries have understood the benefits of collective security and are investing in augmenting the capabilities of littoral countries like the Philippines to withstand China’s maritime might.

Ritu Sharma has been a journalist for over a decade, writing on defense, foreign affairs, and nuclear technology.
The author can be reached at ritu.sharma (at) mail.com
Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

Previous articleWorld’s Most Diverse Fighter Fleet? With Rafale, F-15EX, Su-30, KF-21 In Kitty, TNI-AU Gets Final Batch Of Super Hercules

Next articleIndian Army ‘Mistakes’ Planets For Chinese Drones: A Humorous Glimpse Into Past Amid Beijing’s ‘Newest’ Worry

Ritu Sharma

Ritu Sharma has written on defense and foreign affairs for over a decade. She holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Studies and Management of Peace from the University of Erfurt, Germany. Her areas of interest include Asia-Pacific, the South China Sea, and Aviation history. She can be reached at ritu.sharma (at) mail.com

eurasiantimes.com

4. Deconstructing the Hybrid War Waged on America’s Campuses

As I have written before there are three levels operating here. The surface level of true believers and useful idiots and those who romanticize protest and "resistance". Therenather are political activitists willing to donate money. And third are the organizations operating deeply in the shadows without attribution who are exploiting, manipulating, and guiding the actions of the first two levels. John Schindler dives a little deeper into the foreign connections.

Deconstructing the Hybrid War Waged on America’s Campuses

Behind the anti-Israel protests lurk left-wing donors, shadowy activists – and hostile intelligence services

https://topsecretumbra.substack.com/p/deconstructing-the-hybrid-war-waged

JOHN SCHINDLER

MAY 19, 2024

∙ PAID

This spring’s wave of protests over the Gaza war has buffeted dozens of campuses across the United States, including many elite ones, and has even started to spread internationally. It’s made a mess of graduation season, with a small number of protesters able to harass and intimidate even the great and mighty. Pushback has commenced, with arrests and shutdowns of the “campus intifada,” yet this movement is not yet over. The Israeli war against HAMAS in Gaza is far from complete and we should not expect quick cessation of the protests either.

The unlikely alliance of various leftist activists united for Palestine encompasses the full progressive fringe, from LGBTQ to feminists to environmentalists to racial justice advocates to Islamists and outright jihadists. They share only a hatred for Israel and the West. Pointing out this alliance’s glaring internal contradictions is easy but ultimately futile, since the protesters’ common bond of hatred seems to outweigh all other considerations, at least for now. As I explained in a recent essay, this outwardly improbable anti-Western activist association, aimed at defeating internal as much as external enemies, was predicted some 15 years ago in more than mere outline by my late friend Rich Higgins, but nobody listened.

A great deal of the “campus intifada” appears far from organic. The same tents, the same slogans, the same gear have been noticed by even casual observers of the protests. Somebody is organizing these operations and supporting their considerable logistics, and whoever it is clearly has deep pockets. As is the custom, suspicion has fallen on the constellation of “progressive” outfits and NGOs that are linked to one degree or another to George Soros, the billionaire bête noire of conservatives. Over at Commentary, Abe Greenwald offers analysis of who’s behind the “Woke Jihad” on our campuses, explaining scathingly:

The union of radical leftism and jihadism on display across American campuses is a marriage born of necessity—and of love. The necessity is reciprocal. Three-plus years after the George Floyd revolution, the left had found itself adrift. With the liberal rank and file no longer interested in police-defunding, the public turning against DEI schemes, whistleblowers revealing the horrors of “gender-affirming care” for trans kids, and the term woke a source of liberal embarrassment, what was there to constitute the vital work of social justice? A revolutionary cannot live on microaggressions alone. The left needed a new animating theme, and jihadist fury would prove more than bracing enough.

Greenwald expands his thesis: “The first thing to understand about any left-wing protest movement is that its nominal cause is irrelevant … Underneath their particular brands, social-justice movements are assorted fronts in a radical war against the good.” He then exposes the gaggle of left-wing donors and activists who are funding the pro-Palestinian cause in the U.S. Greenwald cites, among others, American Muslims for Palestine, which supports Students for Justice in Palestine, a leading activist group. SJP, which makes little effort to mask its support for HAMAS, was founded in 1993, has chapters present on over 200 American college campuses, and has played a vanguard role in the current campus unrest. (For those wondering why the Biden White House seems so sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, at Israel’s expense, it’s relevant to note that the director of intelligence on the National Security Council is Maher Bitar, a Palestinian-American who was an SJP official as a student.)

Another significant financial stream supporting the “campus intifada” consists of major Democratic donors, for instance the Tides Foundation, which has gifted large sums to leftist activists, including Palestinian groups. The Tides Foundation, which is flush with cash, gets much of its donations from George Soros, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Pritzkers. Greenwald makes a compelling case that the current protests are an astroturfed affair, in which a small cadre of radical activists (many of whom are not bona fide students, rather professional revolutionaries), buttressed by lots of dark money, have created a ruckus that’s gotten the world’s attention.

A similar argument is made at Tablet by Park MacDougald, who observes, “Scratch a pro-Palestinian radical organization, and you are likely to find Tides’ involvement somewhere.” This is an even deeper dive into the financing of campus radicalism, which MacDougald points out, isn’t distant from the Democrats, rather part of them: “More than any of the dark-money giants on the left, Tides has become tightly integrated with the ascendant Obama faction of the Democratic Party.” Here my late friend Rich Higgins’ insistence that the Obama administration was swiss-cheesed with sympathizers of Islamism and agents of the Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous fronts proved painfully prescient. It’s still relevant, given that in personnel terms, Joe Biden’s presidency is functionally Obama’s third term – nowhere more so than with regards to Middle East policy.

Nevertheless, Greenwald’s and MacDougald’s commendable analysis of who’s pulling the strings behind the “campus intifada” includes a significant omission by virtue of its domestic focus. Yet, the international dimension must be included to grasp the full picture of what’s going on here. Simply put, the current disturbances on U.S. campuses are not only inorganic, representing the outcome of years of constructing and financing a nationwide radical semi-clandestine infrastructure, they are also attributable to foreign intervention in American politics. This represents a form of hybrid warfare being waged against our society by hostile actors abroad, with the enthusiastic participation of Americans, including students, activists, politicians, and wealthy Democratic donors.

Greenwald, to his credit, explains that Qatar – which has hosted HAMAS leadership for many years – has lavished billions of dollars on American colleges, which has unquestionably provided avenues for anti-Israeli views and activism. Similarly, McDougald makes reference to support for the “campus intifada” in New York being provided by The People’s Forum, a radical Manhattan event space that’s bankrolled by Neville Roy Singham, a wealthy tech entrepreneur who’s an admitted Maoist and Beijing superfan, plus the centerpiece of a global Chinese Communist Party propaganda operation.

Foreign actors such as Qatar and China do play a role in this bout of campus activism, to be sure, but they’re not the main players here. The counterintelligence elephant in the room that’s not been mentioned is Cuba. For decades, communist Cuba and its intelligence services have played a pivotal part in nurturing anti-American radicalism all over the world – including inside the United States. While Cuba’s surprisingly robust efforts at waging hybrid warfare against the “imperialist” U.S. are barely known to the American public, they are well understood by the small community of experts who track such esoteric espionage matters.

To the experienced counterspy eye, Cuba’s connections to the “campus intifada” aren’t difficult to detect, at least in outline. Since the early days of the regime, Cuba’s version of the Soviet KGB, the Dirección de Inteligencia or DI, has cultivated and recruited Americans, particularly among students, academics, and left-wing activists, to do Havana’s revolutionary bidding abroad. For decades, DI-trained and supported agents have spread radicalism inside the U.S., as well as around the world. What we are witnessing on campuses today is just one more round of Havana’s hybrid war being waged against America, mostly by Americans.

Cuba’s gotten away with this for so long because it’s been tolerated. On the American Left, cozying up to the communist regime in Havana has offered little if any stigma. Despite the regime’s police-state authoritarianism and appalling human rights record, many are the Western progressives who remain willing to sing Havana’s praises. The most common DI vehicle for spotting and assessing young Americans for intelligence and propaganda purposes is the Venceremos (We Will Win) Brigade, established in 1969 as an outreach organization to bring young Americans to Cuba to witness the glories of the revolution. From the start, the VB was a DI front, with its top members all being vetted by Cuban intelligence (and, in many cases, becoming recruited DI agents). The VB hosts an annual themed contingent in Cuba, and veterans of the Brigade are encouraged to network in activism after their return to the U.S.

None of this is remotely hidden. On the VB website, it lists the Brigade’s goals:

End the US blockade of Cuba, all US-imposed travel restrictions, and all regime change programs
End the illegal US military occupation of Guantánamo Bay
Remove Cuba from the US State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism
Strengthen movements for justice in the US through exchange and collaboration with Cuba

The VB expands on the last goal, “building equity and justice in the struggle against capitalism, racism, patriarchy, and colonialism,” inside the U.S. That’s what we’re witnessing on our campuses now.

You might think there would be outcry from Congress, where allegations of Russian interference in “our democracy” have been heard nonstop since 2016. You would be wrong. In 2020, there was a brief kerfuffle when it turned out that Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, was being considered as a possible vice-president nominee by Joe Biden. In her youth, Bass was an enthusiastic VB member, rising into Brigade leadership (a tell that she was a likely DI agent at some point), an unabashed fan of the Havana regime. She effusively praised Fidel Castro on his death in 2016, indicating that her affection for communist Cuba wasn’t merely a youthful indiscretion. That seems to have caused Biden to pass on selecting Bass as Veep, but the mainstream media paid the spy scandal no attention. It didn’t come up during her successful 2022 run for Los Angeles mayor either.

The pro-Palestinian radical movement is littered with Cuban fellow travelers, not by accident. To take a recent example, Calla Walsh, an “anti-imperialist” activist and co-chair of the National Network on Cuba (an umbrella group for pro-Havana influence operations), was recently indicted for last November’s attack on an Israel-affiliated defense contractor in New Hampshire. The former Disney actress Walsh, who is militantly pro-Havana and anti-Israel, is reported to have visited Cuba several times with VB contingents.

Similarly, a significant figure in the Manhattan anti-Israel campus protests is Manolo De Los Santos, a 35-year-old activist who was born in the Dominican Republic and moved to New York as a child. Since then, however, his life has revolved around supporting Cuba. As reported by the New York Post, De Los Santos, who is unabashedly pro-HAMAS, hailing the terrorist group’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel as “heroic,” first visited Cuba as a teenager with a Cuba-friendly NGO, then kept returning. He lived on the island for “many years” before becoming a full-time radical in the U.S. Since 2018, he has been the executive director and public face of the aforementioned The People’s Forum (TPF) and, as such, De Los Santos was highly active during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests (which he termed the “people’s uprising”). He has been featured in Cuba regime media favorably many times, including in February 2023 when De Los Santos traveled to the island to praise the communist regime while “presenting some of the political training materials that we are carrying out in the United States,” through TPF.

That De Los Santos has been permitted access to top regime leadership, including Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, shows that he has the Cuban Communist Party’s trust; knowing how the regime works, he unquestionably has the DI’s stamp of approval too. Under his leadership, TPF has served as a reliable mouthpiece for Havana. In the wake of the July 2021 Cuban protests over food shortages which shook the communist regime, TPF orchestrated the publication of a full-page ad in the New York Times signed by 400 progressive academics and activists from America and Cuba calling for an end to the U.S. embargo, while depicting the protests as “really” being caused by that embargo.

It’s not a coincidence that campuses feature prominently in this radicalism. Higher education has long been a preferred DI hunting ground for Americans willing to betray their country for Cuba. Many such traitors were spotted and assessed for recruitment by Cuban intelligence while on campus, sometimes by faculty serving as DI access agents. A high-ranking DI defector told me that for his service, finding sympathizers on American college campuses was akin to “fishing with grenades.” The notorious Cuban mole Ana Belen Montes was recruited by the DI to penetrate the U.S. Intelligence Community, as she did successfully for nearly two decades for Havana, while she was a student at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. The DI similarly recruited her friend Marta Rita Velazquez, a fellow JHU/SAIS student. For the trifecta, Kendall Myers, the State Department official who, with his wife, spied for the DI for more than two decades, was an adjunct professor at JHU/SAIS for many years.

Manuel Rocha, the retired senior U.S. diplomat who was just sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for spying for the DI throughout his long State Department career, admitted that the “radical politics” he encountered at Yale University in the early 1970s primed him to spy for Cuba. Indeed, Cuban espionage operations on U.S. college campuses are so commonplace that in 2014 the FBI took the rare step of issuing a public counterintelligence warning about this commonplace threat. That warning explained concisely how Cuban intelligence looks for recruits among left-leaning and “anti-imperialist” college students, with success. Nothing has changed over the last decade.

Much of this anti-democratic hybrid warfare being waged by Havana against the United States on behalf of communist revolution is hiding in plain sight. The Cuban regime even brags about it. However, few Americans outside counterintelligence circles plus Cuban exiles, who are attuned to the regime’s wily ways, care to notice it. Black Lives Matter was, at least in part, the creation of Cuban intelligence. The Venceremos Brigade made no effort to conceal its connection to BLM. Indeed, the annual slogan of the VB’s 2015 pilgrimage to Cuba was – you guessed it – Black Lives Matter.

BLM was the successful template for the current “campus intifada.” Havana selected and trained cadres of “progressive” activists under DI supervision, who methodically networked inside the United States, obtained substantial amounts of cash from left-wing donors, then went mainstream by piggybacking onto a hot issue of the day. The result was the nationwide riots and tumult of the summer of 2020. The revolution needs cash and Democratic donors seem happy to provide it. Meanwhile, Cuban intelligence provides the necessary know-how in organizing a revolution while making it appear to be a “grass roots” phenomenon when it’s actually a foreign intelligence operation. BLM’s 2020 astroturfed revolution is repeating this spring on American college campuses. They may bring another hot summer. Regardless, the mayhem will continue until Americans wake up to the reality of the hybrid warfare being waged inside our country.

5. Why I’m Skipping My 50th Reunion at Yale

Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett is also the Chairman of the Board for the Committee for Human RIghts in North Korea where I am proud to be a member under her leadership.

Conclusion:

My late father, Congressman Tom Lantos, saw first-hand what happened to the Jewish people during the Holocaust when they were left to the mercy of others. Today, I see echoes of this evil as university leaders and administrators stand by while outrageous libels and threats are leveled not only at the Jewish homeland and its defenders but also at anyone who happens to be Jewish.

For decades, I have looked forward to the singular milestone of my 50^th college reunion. As things stand now, I cannot celebrate my beloved alma mater until it once again finds its moral compass and its voice in defense of our most precious civilizational values. This will, somewhat ironically, require university leaders to spurn the modern impulse to silence opposing views while also rejecting the false notion that the violent glorification of terror committed against Jews is “simply free speech.”

To my fellow alumni who share my alarm, I urge you to join me in refusing to support a cherished institution that has lost its way. Skip the reunion; choose not to give financially; urge your child or grandchild to look elsewhere as they apply to university. The students who occupied campus would have you believe that the only way to make your point is through violence and chaos. In fact, there are still peaceful, civil ways to express even the strongest views. I hope many of us will choose to do so at this critical moment in Yale’s history.

Why I’m Skipping My 50th Reunion at Yale

COMMENTARY

By Katrina Lantos Swett

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/05/18/why_im_skipping_my_50th_reunion_at_yale_150966.html

I graduated from Yale University in 1974. As a first-generation American, the child of Holocaust survivors, and among the first women admitted to this incredible school, it is hard to adequately express how grateful I was for this opportunity. I have enjoyed returning to campus frequently over the years, including watching two of my own children graduate from Yale.

Yet, as my 50^th class reunion approaches, it is hard to summon the pride and devotion I once felt. Indeed, the university, along with other similar institutions, has lost its way to such a degree that I cannot in good conscience attend what should have been a joyful occasion.

Many embarrassing episodes have unfolded at Yale in recent years, such as students throwing tantrums about Halloween costumes or law students demonstrating their oratory skill by screaming and shouting down a visiting conservative lawyer. Like many others, these events would cause me to shake my head, but they didn’t fundamentally change my feelings of pride in being an alumnus.

I no longer feel such pride in the wake of pro-Hamas mobs occupying parts of campus and Jewish students being bullied, chased, and, in one case, stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag. As the daughter of the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to the U.S. Congress – but also simply as an American citizen – I feel profound disappointment at the culture that has been nurtured, normalized, and coddled at a venerable institution that should know better.

Sadly, this culture is not unique at Yale. In one sense, the fault lies with the hundreds of openly and viciously antisemitic students and professors who inhabit elite universities across the country. This is not, as some now like to say, “anti-Zionism.” Anti-Zionism, including calls for the destruction of the Jewish homeland and the never-ending demonization, de-legitimization, and application of double standards to Israel, is just the latest and more palatable strain of antisemitism.

But in another sense, the students and professors screaming about resistance and glorifying the attacks of Oct. 7 are not solely to blame; administrations at these schools bear profound responsibility. Yale leadership has shown enormous concern and solicitude for any number of minority or marginalized communities on campus and has maintained a zero-tolerance approach vis-à-vis any hatred or discrimination against them. No such visible vigilance has existed when it comes to defending the Jewish students on campus.

Though FIRE ranks Yale near the bottom of the list in terms of its free-speech climate, attacks directed at Israel somehow turn administrators into free-speech absolutists. No matter how hateful, how filled with incitement, how explicit the calls for genocide against Israeli Jews might be, Yale proves extremely mindful of the right to spew such hatred without any meaningful consequences.

Of course, one can find carefully worded statements from school leadership that manage to obscure the wrongs more than illuminate them. They often feel like AI-generated text, created in response to a prompt that asks for a statement that won’t offend the offenders. But where are the ringing and unequivocal denunciations of those who celebrate the genocidal rapists and murderers of Hamas? Where is the footage of President Salovey walking in solidarity with Jewish students as they confront the haters who have overwhelmed the campus?

My late father, Congressman Tom Lantos, saw first-hand what happened to the Jewish people during the Holocaust when they were left to the mercy of others. Today, I see echoes of this evil as university leaders and administrators stand by while outrageous libels and threats are leveled not only at the Jewish homeland and its defenders but also at anyone who happens to be Jewish.

For decades, I have looked forward to the singular milestone of my 50^th college reunion. As things stand now, I cannot celebrate my beloved alma mater until it once again finds its moral compass and its voice in defense of our most precious civilizational values. This will, somewhat ironically, require university leaders to spurn the modern impulse to silence opposing views while also rejecting the false notion that the violent glorification of terror committed against Jews is “simply free speech.”

To my fellow alumni who share my alarm, I urge you to join me in refusing to support a cherished institution that has lost its way. Skip the reunion; choose not to give financially; urge your child or grandchild to look elsewhere as they apply to university. The students who occupied campus would have you believe that the only way to make your point is through violence and chaos. In fact, there are still peaceful, civil ways to express even the strongest views. I hope many of us will choose to do so at this critical moment in Yale’s history.

Dr. Katrina Lantos is former chair of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and president of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice.

6. Marines Stop 2 Jordanian Nationals From Attempting to Breach Quantico Marine Base

Reconnaissance?

Other than Marine Corps Times, why are only obscure, minor, and local news sites reporting this? The question is rhetorical as I think the answer is obvious.

Also the King of Jordan was in Tampa the same week.

Excerpts:

The ICE spokesman identified the two detainees as Jordanian nationals.

Potomac Local News, which first reported the attempted breach, reported that multiple unidentified sources overheard conversations alleging at least one of the Jordanian nationals who was arrested had recently crossed the U.S. southern border and was on a terrorism watch list.

An ICE official, speaking on background, said the agency has no reason at this time to believe either of the two suspects are connected to terrorism.

Marines Stop 2 Jordanian Nationals From Attempting to Breach Quantico Marine Base

americanmilitarynews.com · by Editorial Staff · May 18, 2024

U.S. Marine’s standing guard at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia recently stopped a pair of foreign nationals from running through their security gate and driving onto the military installation.

In an emailed statement to American Military News, Marine Corps spokesman Kyle Olson said base sentries stopped the two foreign nationals after they approached the base’s Fuller Road Gate on May 3.

“When asked, the operator of the truck informed the military police officers they worked for a company subcontracted by Amazon and were making a delivery to the U.S. Post Office located in the Town of Quantico,” Olson said. “Due to the occupants of the vehicle having no affiliation to the Marine Corps Base Quantico and no approved credentials to access the installation, the military police officers directed the vehicle to a holding area while they conducted standard access control vetting procedures.”

Olson said while Marine base sentries ordered the truck to turn around, the driver of the truck ignored the orders and attempted to keep driving through.

“Due to the swift response and execution of their duties, the officers were able to deploy the vehicle denial barriers, prevent any further access to Marine Corps Base Quantico, and detain the individuals who were eventually turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody,” Olson continued.

In a separate emailed statement, an ICE spokesman told American Military News that the Marine Corps base officials notified ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) office in Washington, D.C. of the incident.

“Marine Corps Base authorities notified ERO Washington, D.C. of the apprehensions,” the ICE spokesman said. “Deportation officers from ERO Washington, D.C.’s Criminal Apprehension Program responded and arrested both individuals without incident. Both individuals will remain in ERO custody pending removal proceedings.

The ICE spokesman identified the two detainees as Jordanian nationals.

Potomac Local News, which first reported the attempted breach, reported that multiple unidentified sources overheard conversations alleging at least one of the Jordanian nationals who was arrested had recently crossed the U.S. southern border and was on a terrorism watch list.

An ICE official, speaking on background, said the agency has no reason at this time to believe either of the two suspects are connected to terrorism.

Marine Corps Base Quantico is host to a number of key Marine Corps functions, including it’s Officer Candidate School (OCS), and Marine Corps University, and the Marine Corps Combat Development Command. The base also hosts the FBI’s training academy is also located on the Marine Base.

americanmilitarynews.com · by Editorial Staff · May 18, 2024

7. U.S. Fears Undersea Cables Are Vulnerable to Espionage From Chinese Repair Ships

So what are the rules of engagement here? Assuming it could be detected, what actions can be taken against someone disturbing these communications cables? Can we defend these cables and when someone conducts unauthorized activities on these cables? Is the use of force to defend them acceptable under international law? VBSS by US Naval forces to determine what these "repair ships" are doing? Ofc house given the various entities involved (with ownership and access) there are more subtle ways to exploit these cables and create havoc for those who depend on them (such as anyone reading this message).

Video, maps, and interactive graphics are at the link.

U.S. Fears Undersea Cables Are Vulnerable to Espionage From Chinese Repair Ships

Google, Meta Platforms and others partially own many cables, but they rely on maintenance specialists, including some with foreign ownership

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/china-internet-cables-repair-ships-93fd6320?st=ogmonrl5ujacnpw&utm

By Dustin VolzFollow

, Drew FitzGeraldFollow

, Peter ChampelliFollow

and Emma BrownFollow

Updated May 19, 2024 12:00 am ET

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials are privately delivering an unusual warning to telecommunications companies: Undersea cables that ferry internet traffic across the Pacific Ocean could be vulnerable to tampering by Chinese repair ships.

State Department officials said a state-controlled Chinese company that helps repair international cables, S.B. Submarine Systems, appeared to be hiding its vessels’ locations from radio and satellite tracking services, which the officials and others said defied easy explanation.

The warnings highlight an overlooked security risk to undersea fiber-optic cables, according to these officials: Silicon Valley giants, such as Google and Meta Platforms, partially own many cables and are investing in more. But they rely on specialized construction and repair companies, including some with foreign ownership that U.S. officials fear could endanger the security of commercial and military data.

The Biden administration’s focus on the repair ships is part of a wide-ranging effort to address China’s maritime activities in the western Pacific. Beijing has taken steps in recent decades to counter U.S. military power in the region, often by seeking ways to stymie the Pentagon’s communications and other technological advantages in case of a clash over Taiwan or another flashpoint, officials say.

U.S. officials have told companies, including Google and Meta, about their concerns that Chinese companies could threaten the security of U.S.-owned cables, a person familiar with the briefings said. In some cases, the conversations have included discussion of Shanghai-based S.B. Submarine Systems, the person said.

Senior Biden administration officials have also received briefings in recent months about the risks posed by Chinese companies, including SBSS, working on repairs to undersea cables, according to the person.

The security of undersea cables “is rooted in the ability of trusted entities to build, maintain, and repair” them “in a transparent and safe manner,” the National Security Council said in a statement, noting that satellite ship tracking “is one such measure that supports vessel monitoring and safety.”

The administration declined to comment on SBSS. Google and Meta declined to comment about the Biden administration’s concerns related to SBSS. SBSS didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The gaps in the company’s ship-location data could be explained by spotty satellite coverage rather than as an effort to hide their positions, according to another person who is familiar with the company. The cable owners often have representatives aboard repair ships at sea, which would make any potential meddling with cable gear hard to hide, the person added.

The vessels—named the Fu Hai, Fu Tai, and Bold Maverick—periodically disappeared from satellite ship-tracking services, sometimes for days at a time, while operating off Taiwan, Indonesia and other coastal locations in Asia, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of shipping data.

The data gaps were unusual for commercial cable ships and lacked clear explanation, the officials and industry experts said.

Hundreds of thousands of miles of underwater fiber-optic cables carry almost all the world’s international internet traffic. Dozens of lines lace the Pacific Ocean floor, shuttling data between the Americas, Asia and many island chains.

Workers pulled an undersea fiber-optic cable from a ship anchored offshore to a beach in Minamiboso, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, in 2012 as part of an operation to lay a cable connecting Japan and Singapore. PHOTO: KYODO NEWS/REUTERS

SBSS is part of a regional consortium of companies that provides ships to fix undersea cables, including some belonging to major U.S. companies, by winching them to the surface, resplicing broken fibers that carry internet data and returning the lines to the sea floor.

U.S. and congressional officials who disclosed their concerns about SBSS wouldn’t say whether their worries stemmed from classified intelligence about maritime espionage or only potential threats to internet infrastructure. But commercially available satellite tracking data showed numerous gaps while the company’s ships were at sea, they said.

Underwater cables are vulnerable to tampering when they are brought to the surface for repairs, U.S. officials say. Tapping global data flows is still far easier on land, industry experts say. But at-sea repair could still offer an opportunity to install a device to remotely disable a cable or to study the technology in advanced signal repeaters installed by other companies.

U.S. officials said that cable repair ships pose a security threat because they could engage in clandestine tapping of undersea data streams, mapping of the ocean floor to conduct reconnaissance on U.S. military communication links, or theft of valuable intellectual property used in cable equipment. The ships could also lay cables for the Chinese military, they said.

Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said he wasn’t aware of U.S. concerns about SBSS.

“It is nothing wrong for Chinese companies to carry out normal business in accordance with the law,” he said. “We firmly oppose the U.S. to generalize the concept of national security and attack and smear Chinese companies.”

The SBSS vessels’ location-tracking beacons have been inoperative periodically over the past five years, according to radio and satellite data from commercial data provider MarineTraffic that was reviewed by the Journal.

In early February 2021, the Fu Hai left its berth near Shanghai and sped north up the coast into the Yellow Sea. Then the 340-foot, red-hulled vessel stopped broadcasting its location signal for two days before it popped up back near Shanghai. The signal went on and off for a few more days back near Shanghai before the ship docked again, tracking data show.

It wasn’t clear whether the vessel’s automatic identification systems—satellite and radio transponders that ships use to broadcast their location—were turned off or suffered an unintentional outage.

The Fu Hai has seen other significant gaps in reporting its tracking data at least a dozen times over the past five years, according to the MarineTraffic data.

A gap in transponder data alone isn’t necessarily a red flag, a senior U.S. government official said. “But it would raise suspicions if it happens repeatedly, especially if they are operating in the vicinity of a cable that might have strategic significance,” such as those ferrying military communications, the official said.

The U.S. intelligence community has warned for years about the security of undersea cables, noting in a 2017 report that industry consortia that maintain cables might “present vulnerabilities” and could be “susceptible to threats from insiders.” Cable integrity has long been a U.S. concern in the event of a direct conflict with China, former intelligence officials said.

SBSS was formed in 1995 as a Chinese-British joint venture. State-owned China Telecom has long held 51% of the business and is in the process of buying the remainder from U.K.-based Global Marine Systems, according to people familiar with the matter. A member of the Chinese Communist Party serves on the SBSS management team, according to the company’s website. He didn’t reply to a written message seeking comment.

The U.S. in 2021 stripped China Telecom’s licenses, arguing that it was subject to “exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government.” The move didn’t affect U.S. companies’ ability to use the repair consortium that includes SBSS.

1:10

Paused

0:01

5:06

TAP FOR SOUND

Taiwan’s internet relies on undersea cables that also connect much of Asia to the web, but tensions with Beijing have raised concerns about the network’s vulnerability. WSJ maps out how China could limit the island’s communications, and how Taipei is preparing. Illustration: Adam Adada

Safeguarding underwater cables has been a focus of U.S. national-security officials since the Cold War, when fears of Soviet espionage were paramount. In the 1970s, the U.S. secretly placed wiretaps on underwater Soviet lines in an intelligence coup known as Operation Ivy Bells.

Beijing’s rapid military buildup in the South China Sea in recent decades has heightened American government worries about the cables’ vulnerability to disruption or tampering.

U.S. officials say they are especially concerned about the security of cables that carry sensitive data to American bases and other military assets in the Pacific and around the globe. Though encrypted, that data can pass through commercial internet lines.

To prevent interruptions from damaged lines, the U.S. government is funding several Pacific cable projects along with American internet companies, such as Google. Google this year said it was investing $1 billion in new cables and other infrastructure projects in the region.

SubCom, a cable ship company owned by private-equity giant Cerberus Capital Management, receives $10 million in annual U.S. government payments for participating in the Cable Security Fleet, a program partly overseen by the Pentagon. It requires the ships to be available for critical cable repair or other emergencies.

At a congressional hearing in January, Rep. Ann Wagner, a Missouri Republican, said she was “very concerned about Chinese companies repairing or even having access to undersea cables that are owned by U.S. carriers.”

Nathaniel Fick, the State Department’s top cybersecurity official who was testifying at the hearing, said he shared her concern. “I believe when our adversaries tell us what they intend to do, we should believe them,” he said.

Fick said in a statement to the Journal that undersea cable security can’t be assured if the lines “are built, maintained, or repaired by suppliers who are subordinate to or are beholden to authoritarian governments.”

SBSS is one of three maintenance shipowners that are members of Yokohama Zone, a consortium used by internet cable owners in the northwest Pacific. The group keeps ships on standby, based in China, South Korea and Japan. SBSS parent China Telecom hosted a meeting of Yokohama Zone companies in Wuhan, China, in March, according to people familiar with the event.

In response to questions about SBSS, Yokohama Zone Chairman Masanori Araki, a submarine cable expert from Japanese telecom company and shipowner KDDI, said the Chinese company is in compliance with the consortium’s performance standards.

“Cable owners are receiving and enjoying assured service quality, whichever service provider they may use,” he said.

Industry analysts say that shifting responsibility for fixing Asian cables away from Chinese vessels could pose a tougher challenge. Cable owners have few choices among an aging fleet of roughly 50 ships around the world, according to Mike Constable, who runs telecom consulting firm Infra-Analytics and previously led China’s Huawei Marine Networks, now known as HMN Technologies.

“You’ve got a Chinese asset repairing U.S.-invested cables,” Constable said. “No one had really thought about that before.”

Write to Dustin Volz at dustin.volz@wsj.com, Drew FitzGerald at andrew.fitzgerald@wsj.com, Peter Champelli at peter.champelli@wsj.com and Emma Brown at Emma.Brown@wsj.com

8. The latest veterans, civilians inducted into Special Forces regiment

Some truly great American heroes and I am proud to know some of them.

MIke Sheehan was responsible for much of our work in the Philippines. Before 9-11 he recognized the challenges of terroism and insurgency in the Philippines and from State CT he was able to provide the resources that allowed 1st Special Forces Group to stand up it National Counterrorism Force the Light Reaction Company, which the Philippines then built into what is now a self sustained national mission force of the Light Reaction Regiment. This paved the way for the US SOF contribution to defense of the Philippines in OEF-P. I also was fortunate to contribute a chapter on this mission to his last book.

I spent a lot of time with Vic Hugo during the last 8 or so years of his life as we served on the committee for establishing the National Museum of Intelligence and Special Operations and as fellow board members of the OSS Society. Not mentioned below was the fact that he worked for Edward Lansdale so I was able to learn a lot about him from the stories Vic told (and he had many great stories to tell. I could listen to him all day).

The latest veterans, civilians inducted into Special Forces regiment

fayobserver.com

Twenty-one soldiers, civilians and veterans were named honorary members of the Special Forces, Psychological Operations and Civil Affairs community during induction ceremonies last month.

The inductees were honored during an April 26 ceremony that coincided with Heritage Week at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School.

The induction ceremony included a Congressional Gold Medal presentation from the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops “Ghost Army” and the 3133rd Signal Service Company for their service during World War II.

The Regimental honors recognize those who have contributed to the welfare of their respective regiments while serving in the military, as Department of the Army civilians or in a private capacity, a news release stated.

The program serves as a link between members of the regiments currently serving and those who have separated from service, but continue to advance the interests of their regiments.

Among the inductees are Medal of Honor recipients, a former Delta Force soldier and Army civilian who was recognized by all three regiments for the first time.

Below are the honorees.

Special Forces

• Maj. Charles Q. Williams was a lieutenant who received the Medal of Honor in June 1966 for defending a Special Forces camp against hostile Viet Cong forces June 9-10, 1965 while serving with the 5th Special Forces Group. During the 14-hour battle, Williams was stuck twice by shrapnel in his legs, rushed through gunfire, was wounded by shrapnel in the stomach and then wounded a fourth time in the arm and leg, but continued to fight and to direct his troops in fighting while organizing the evacuation of wounded American soldiers.Williams died Oct. 15, 1982, in Columbia, South Carolina.

• First Lt. George K. Sisler posthumously received the Medal of Honor on June 27, 1968, for actions that ended in his death on Feb. 7, 1967, in Vietnam.

A member of the 5th Special Forces Group, 1st Special Forces Command, Sisler was leading a patrol through enemy-dominated territory when a company-sized enemy force attacked.

In order to carry one injured American soldier to safety, Sisler charged through intense enemy fire, killed three enemy soldiers and stopped an enemy machine gun with a grenade.

When he returned to rescue a second wounded American soldier, the U.S. troop’s flank was being overrun by the enemy, prompting Sisler to charge — firing his weapon and throwing grenades to break up the assault and force the enemy to withdraw — and costing him his life.

• Maj. Gen. Victor J. Hugo Jr. who graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1954, served more than 33 years. His first assignment was as a Central Intelligence Agency case officer for unconventional warfare and paramilitary actions in Saigon, where he served as a leader, interpreter and translator for training missions for Vietnamese officers.

After graduating from the Special Forces Qualification Course in 1962, he was assigned to 1st Special Forces Group in Okinawa, Japan, with missions in Thailand, Korea, and Taiwan. Hugo also conducted the mission to rescue a Royal Lao military commander from a jail.

Hugo also served at the Pentagon where he helped establish the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy; commander of Special Forces matters at the Special Warfare Center and School with the Department of the Army; commander of the 38th Air Defense Artillery Brigade in the Republic of Korea and commander of the 32nd Army Air Defense Command in Germany.

His awards included Bronze Star Medal with oak leaf cluster and Purple Heart, Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters and Legion of Merit, along with other honors from Germany, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia.

After his retirement, Hugo founded the Special Forces Association Saudi Arabian Chapter and, eventually served on the board of the Special Forces Association’s National Capitol Chapter and was the executive vice president for the Office of Strategic Services Society, which led to the development of the National Museum of Intelligence and Special Operations.

Hugo died in May 2020 at age 89.

• Brig. Gen. Richard W. Potter Jr. was drafted into the Army in 1961, first serving in Germany and then several deployments to Vietnam where he commanded a Special Forces team and advised Vietnamese rangers.

Potter also served in Iran, Iraq, Zaire, Sierra Leone, and Haiti on operations Eagle Claw, Desert Shield/ Storm, Provide Comfort, Wealthy Ghost, Silver Anvil, and Uphold Democracy.

He was commander of the 10th Special Forces Group, Special Operations Command Europe, during the culmination of the Cold War, fall of the Berlin Wall, and the humanitarian and security operations in Haiti.

Later in his career, Potter was the deputy commander of the United States Army Special Operations Command.

Among Potter’s awards and honors are the: Silver Star with oak leaf cluster; Bronze Star with valor; Bronze Star with three oak leaf clusters; the Purple Heart with oak leaf cluster; the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with palm device; and the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster.

Potter retired after 34 years of service in December 1994, and lives in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, with his wife, Annie.

• Col. Lee A. Van Arsdale was a rifle platoon leader, antitank platoon leader, and company executive officer with th 101st Airborne Division.

After completing Special Forces Assessment and Selection, he served in various special operations and joint special operations units including leading combat operations in Operation Just Cause in Panama during which he placed dictator Manuel Noriega in restraints.

According to the West Point Association of Graduates, Van Arsdale spent 11 of his 25 years in the Army with the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta and was also part of the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia in 1993, known as “Blackhawk Down.” He received the Silver Star with valor for leading troops through enemy fire at the Blackhawk crash site and received a Purple Heart for combat wounds sustained during Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia.

His final active-duty assignment was in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict in the Pentagon, where he was responsible for counterterrorism and special projects.

Van Arsdale retired and now lives with his wife, Marilee, and their three sons in Colorado.

• Lt. Col. Michael A. Sheehan commissioned from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1977 as an infantry officer.

Following graduation from the Special Forces Officer Course in 1979, he served as an operational detachment–Alpha executive officer and detachment commander for the 7th Special Forces Group in Panama.

Sheehan held several overseas assignments, including as a mechanized company commander in Korea and a counterinsurgency advisor in El Salvador.

He also served on the National Security Council; as director for International Programs under former President George W. Bush; as director for Political Affairs and Special Counselor to Ambassador Madeline Albright while also serving as special advisor to the Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General; and as director of Global Issues under former President Bill Clinton.

Upon military retirement, Sheehan served in the Bureau of International Organizations and was appointed by Clinton as ambassador-at-large for Counter Terrorism; as the assistant secretary general of Mission Support in the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations; and as deputy commissioner of counterterrorism for the New York Police Department.

In 2011. he was appointed as the assistant secretary of defense of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict where he established the Irregular Warfare Group and was awarded the Distinguished Public Service Award.

He died July 30, 2018, and is survived by his widow, Sita Graham Vasan, who lives in Bethesda, Maryland, and a son and daughter.

• Retired Chief Warrant Officer 5 James J. Korenoski, the first command chief warrant officer of the 1st Special Warfare Training Group, enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1987 as an infantryman and completed the Special Forces Qualification Course in 1994. With the 5th Special Forces Group he served as weapons sergeant; intelligence sergeant; detachment commander; company, battalion, and group operations warrant; and as an instructor at the Warrant Officer Institute.

He had numerous combat deployments to Somalia, Operations Desert Shield/Storm, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Inherent Resolve.

After more than 31 years of service, Korenoski concluded his military career as command chief warrant officer for the 5th Special Forces Group.

His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal with five oak leaf clusters and Legion of Merit.

Korenoski is a life member of the Special Forces Association and is currently vice president of Chapter 38 in Kentucky, where he lives with his wife of more than 30 years, Angie. The couple has two sons who also serve in the military.

• Retired Sgt. Maj. Vladimir “Jake” Jakovenko immigrated to the United States in November 1950 and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1958.

In 1959, he left active duty and entered the Army Reserve but returned to active duty in 1962, a year after he became an American citizen.

Jakovenko served with the 82nd Airborne Division and deployed to the Dominican Republic after completing Ranger School.

In December 1965, he served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in South Vietnam as member of a long-range reconnaissance patrol and returned to the 82nd Airborne Division in December 1966.

Jakovenko was assigned to the 6th Special Forces Group after completing the Special Forces Qualification Course in June 1968.

Later that year, Jakovenko was assigned to 5th Special Forces Group in the II Corps area of operation in South Vietnam, before returning to the 6th Special Forces Group between 1969 and 1971.

From 1969 to 1971, Jakovenko served with the 6th Special Forces Group, participating in the Son Tay Raid mission to free American prisoners of war held in North Vietnam.

After his service in Vietnam, Jakovenko returned to 5th Special Forces Group at then-Fort Bragg, until 1980 when he served two years with the Army Reserve Officer’s Training Corps program at the University of Guam.

After his time in ROTC, Jakovenko served as sergeant major for 1st Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group.

In 1985, Jakovenko was assigned to the special projects support activity at Fort Bragg.

Jakovenko retired from the Army in 19990 as sergeant major for the U.S. Army Western Command Special Operations Detachment at Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

His awards include a Silver Star for his actions at Son Tay in Vietnam, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with valor and two oak leaf clusters and the Purple Heart.

Jakovenko lives in Stanton, Kentucky, with his wife, Sandy.

• Master Sgt. Harvey Gordon Brande, who was held as a prisoner of war in Southeast Asia for five years, served in the Army three times beginning with his first enlistment in August 1954 during which he served as a tank crewman at Fort Lewis, Washington; as a tank driver, tank loader and tank gunner at then-Fort Bragg; and then with the 370th Armored Infantry Battalion in West Germany until July 1958.

Brande rejoined the Army as a military police officer in December 1958 and was assigned to the 515th Ordnance Company at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico until March 1962.

A month later, he rejoined the Army for the third time as a tank driver with the 10th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Ord, California, until he attended Medical Corpsman and Special Forces Aidman Training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and Special Forces Training at Fort Bragg. He then served with the 1st Special Forces Group, in Okinawa, Japan, and with the 3rd Special Forces Group at then-Fort Bragg.

While deployed to South Vietnam as a Special Forces medic he was captured at Lang Vei on Feb. 7, 1968. Brande and another soldier escaped 11 days later, but was recaptured Feb. 25, 1968. He spent 1,865 as a prisoner of war before being released on March 16, 1973. He received two Silver Stars and retired at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, on Feb. 27, 1975.

Brande died Aug. 7, 2021.

Other inductees

Other veterans civilians and soldiers inducted into the civil affairs regiment included: Col. Frank E. Toscani; Staff Sgt. Kashif M. Memon, who was killed in action Oct. 25, 2012, while serving with the 96th Civil Affairs Battalion in Afghanistan, and civilians Jeanne J. Goldmann and Dr. Troy Sacquety.

Civilian William “Bill” Woon was inducted as an honorary member of the Special Forces regiment.

Spec. 5 Richard Hosier, Alexis Ureyvitch Sommaripa and Clarence “Chad” Spawr were inducted as members into the psychological operations regiment along with honorary members retired Col. David C. Grohoski, Marine Corps Col. Todd M. Manyx and Air Force Lt. Col. Robert C. Teasdale.

Roxanne Merritt, the Special Warfare Museum director who has served in the special warfare community, is the first person to be inducted into all three regiments as an honorary member.

Staff writer Rachael Riley can be reached at rriley@fayobserver.com or 910-486-3528.

More:Special operation forces induct members into regiments at Fort Bragg. Here’s who they are.

fayobserver.com

9. Did colleges give away the store in deals with student protesters?

Some lessons to be learned. But will anyone learn them?

Did colleges give away the store in deals with student protesters?

BY LEXI LONAS - 05/18/24 2:00 PM ET

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4670822-colleges-deals-student-protesters-gaza-israel-hamas-palestine/

Colleges that used police force to end their recent on-campus student protests are facing criticism for their handling of the situation, but so are the small handful that cut deals to end the demonstrations.

The few universities that successfully negotiated to end the pro-Palestinian encampments — among them Northwestern, Brown, Rutgers and Johns Hopkins — made concessions that are proving controversial, particularly complete amnesty or more favorable disciplinary proceedings for protesters who have broken campus rules.

Activists are praising the outcomes, however, and experts say only time will tell if the colleges made the right call.

“I think that the university leaders who have made the deal with the protesters have been wise to do so and have really kind of shown what leadership should look like in higher education,” said Marcella Bombardieri, a senior fellow for the higher education team at the Center for American Progress. “I think that they are recognizing that there is actually a teachable moment here on both sides.”

One of the main goals of the Gaza war protests was divestment of school endowments from Israel, which no encampment was able to outright achieve.

Some of the schools that reached deals with activists agreed to allow students to present their arguments for divestment to their school board, or to put together a new committee on the issue. Brown University guaranteed its board would vote on the matter.

The president of Sonoma State University agreed to an academic boycott of Israel but was later suspended due to “insubordination” over the agreement.

Northwestern committed to give free tuition to a certain number of Palestinian students and to hire more Palestinian faculty, while Rutgers said it would explore the creation of an Arab Cultural Center.

All the deals ended with school administrations in some way condemning the violence in Gaza.

“I acknowledge the profound grief that many in our community feel over the tragic effects of the ongoing war. There will continue to be deep disagreements and strongly felt emotions as we experience pain and distress over events in the wider world,” the interim president of Harvard said in a statement.

In exchange, students have taken down their encampments and agreed to abide by school rules around demonstrations through the end of the academic year.

Critics, however, say administrators have set a terrible precent in agreeing to more lenient disciplinary proceedings for activists.

Schools that “strike deals with groups of students that engage in repeated violations of school policies is a horrible idea because it encourages and rewards rule violation at the university. This is going to lay the groundwork for increasingly disruptive behavior going forward,” said Jay Greene, senior research fellow in the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation.

“The worst part about the deals is amnesty for rule-breaking,” Greene said, “because no one knows what impermissible behavior can be forgiven at any time, so that’s a very dangerous precedent.”

Brown University said that while the protesters broke several policies by setting up tents and camping out on school property, it would look “favorably in disciplinary proceedings” for the demonstrators, given the circumstances.

The University of Minnesota, meanwhile, offered a blanket pardon to students who’ve participated in protests over the past few weeks with the goal of wrapping up those demonstrations.

“Universities have wide discretion when it comes to punishment and enforcing its rules. And I think that they need to exercise that to make sure that the punishments are not disproportionate to what students have done,” Bombardieri said.

“When you have people who are peacefully expressing their views on a really disastrous, tragic situation that is unfolding before our eyes that they should be really should be looking for opportunities to make, again, make it a learning experience for students and not a punitive one,” Bombardieri added.

Some suspect the reason the schools capitulated at all and didn’t simply ride the protests out until the summer when students went home was their looming graduation ceremonies.

“Commencement is the day when the grass has to be green, the flowers have to be pretty so that all of the parents and alumni can see the beautiful campus that they will remember and write checks — and so they had to get rid of these protests” Greene said.

But he said attempts in the future to follow through with disciplinary measures could potentially get the schools in legal trouble due to their decisions today.

“They could switch their minds in the future and decide to enforce the rules going forward but it just becomes harder and harder,” Greene said, pointing to “the problem of discriminatory enforcement.”

“So, if you enforce the rules on one group of protesters, but not on another, that could also expose these universities to Title IX or other legal liabilities.”

10. Teledyne FLIR’s ‘new’ Rogue 1 loitering munition has been under SOCOM contract for two years

We can learn a lot from public contracting information. (And so can our adversaries). But that is the nature of doing busiess with our government and ultimately it is a feature and not a bug of federal democratic republic.

Teledyne FLIR’s ‘new’ Rogue 1 loitering munition has been under SOCOM contract for two years

breakingdefense.com · by Andrew White

By Andrew White on May 17, 2024 at 1:45 PM

The Teledyne FLIR Rogue 1 loitering munition is seen in company promo art. (Teledyne FLIR)

LONDON — When Teledyne FLIR unveiled its “new” Rogue 1 loitering munition system (LMS) on May 7, it was the first glimpse the public got of the design. But quietly, US Special Operations Command has been testing the vertical take-off/landing capability system for over two years, Breaking Defense has learned.

The company has been under a training and evaluation contract with SOCOM since 2022 as part of the Ground Organic Precision Strike System Echelon 0-Air (0A) requirement. Teledyne FLIR Defense’s Dave Salter, director of US Business Development, confirmed the company continues to deliver “additional systems” to SOCOM.

GOPSS 0A is sub-divided into three categories including ‘nano-’, ‘micro-’ and ‘mega-’ sized platforms. Weighing approximately 10lbs, Rogue 1 satisfies the micro category; Rogue 1 is the only system currently being tested in that category, with the other categories yet to be fulfilled.

In response to questions from Breaking Defense, a SOCOM spokesperson said the command “is using a multi-phase approach to field Ground Organic Precision Strike Systems Echelon 0 Air Micro capabilities, which began with competitive demonstration and down select of the Teledyne FLIR Rogue 1.

“Our next step is to purchase limited quantities of the Rogue 1 for further test and evaluation in support of a fielding decision and follow-on Low-Rate Initial Production in late calendar year 2025.”

Addressing delegates at SOF Week, Lt Col Tosh Lancaster, Program Executive Officer- SOF Lethality confirmed SOCOM “already have one of the solutions we’re going after” although he did not specifically reference Teledyne FLIR Defense’s Rogue 1 LMS. He also clarified the selected system remains “in development.”

“In contested environments, we know that a lot of our things that we relied on in the global war on terror are not survivable. So that’s originally what we were after,” Lancaster said. “So now we describe it as precision effects unmanned with control at the tactical level.”

According to a company statement, Rogue 1 is a “next-generation, rapidly deployed and optionally-lethal VTOL small unmanned aerial system that enables warfighters to conduct precision strikes against moving and stationary armored targets, soft-skinned vehicles and dismounted threats.”

The Rogue 1 allows users to abort and recover the system if needed, and is able to operate in day or night conditions. The company also hyped up its modular nature with multiple payloads. The system has a maximum endurance of 30 minutes and range of 10km and has capacity to fly at a top speed of 113kph, including through GPS-denied areas of operation. Navigation can be enabled by GNSS, visual or thermal recognition. Communications are AES 256 encrypted.

The air frame is controlled by a single operator using a 2.3kg fire control unit. The LMS can also carry a laser range finder and LADAR sensor to calculate height of burst for proximity fire missions. A company official said Rogue 1 could be hand-launched, tube-launched as well as fired from a multi-canister launcher which could be integrated on board a tactical ground vehicle or surface vessel for example.

SOCOM’s pursuit of the 0A requirement comes at a time when one-way attack drones and small, weaponized UAS are proliferating the modern battlefield, particularly in Ukraine where both sides are using a wide range of technologies to target dismounted and mounted personnel.

The command may be particularly interested in a VTOL LMS solution, which allows alternative concepts of operation for end users over fixed wing solutions — particularly thanks to their ability to be launched and controlled in confined spaces such as dense urban environments.

The company official emphasized how his system could be deployed to dominate the so-called “Atmospheric Littoral” environment- the low altitude airspace where systems do not need to worry about obstacles on the ground and where they can use buildings and topography for concealment before attacking enemy combatants.

SOCOM is hardly alone in its interest in this kind of technology, nor in its interest in Rogue 1. On April 11, the US Marine Corps awarded development contracts to Anduril Industries, Aerovironment and Teledyne FLIR Defense for a mix of VTOL and fixed wing LMS as part of the Organic Precision Fires—Light program. Selected solutions include the Rogue 1, Aerovironment’s Switchblade 300 Block 20, and an undisclosed VTOL solution from Anduril.

Ground Competition Next Up

Lancaster also revealed that the SOCOM is looking for equivalent systems from ground robotics, under the GOPSS Echelon 0-Ground (0G) program name. Like the 0A effort, this will feature three categories — nano, micro and mega unmanned ground vehicles integrated with interchangeable payloads, including a munition.

“We’re looking for multiple solutions and that’s why we’re looking for bolt-on lethality. Ideally, in my head what we would be able to do is take some of our ISR assets and be able to bolt-on lethality, whether it be in the air or on the ground,” Lancaster said. “It would be great to be able to have the same [lethal payload] that can be lifted by a [R80D] SkyRaider [UAV] and then just bolted onto a quadroped [UGV]. That would be ideal to save both money and training.”

In fact, the question of training is one that SOF operators of unmanned systems are trying to get a better handle on.

“What we have found through much experimentation over the last three years is that we thought flying drones and flying robotics was going to be a lot easier than it is. It is not something that you can just pick up and do,” Lancaster said. “It takes a lot of training. In fact, some of the systems take a specialist to [operate] so what we’re asking for is if you have training systems or systems that make the user interface much easier.

“Then reliability increases and that’s everything from training to cold weather and hot weather fixes allowing them to be used in every environment and work every single time.”

US Special Forces open permanent base in Poland

1lurer.am

Political

13:2318 May, 2024

The United States has established a permanent special forces base in Poland, where 150-200 American military personnel will be stationed. The base is located near the Balice airport, close to Kraków, as reported by RMF24.

Named Miron Camp, the base aims to facilitate continuous cooperation and training between American special forces and nearby Polish units, while also serving as a deterrent to potential aggressors.

“This initiative is about enhancing our existing capabilities. This permanent presence will strengthen the deterrent signal, contributing to the security of our nation,” said Lieutenant Colonel Mariusz Lapeta, spokesperson for the Polish Special Forces component.

It is noteworthy that Miron Camp will be the easternmost training centre for American special forces and the closest to the Russian border.

The new American base is named in honour of Polish soldier Mirosław "Miron" Łucki, who died in Afghanistan during NATO operations. The ceremonial opening was attended by Miron's wife and son. Lukasz, a high school student, aspires to become a soldier in the future, with dreams of joining the air force. American officials were also present at the opening ceremony.

“This is a good sign for the future of our relations,” said Erin Nickerson, the US Consul General in Kraków, at the base's inauguration.

The Gaze previously reported that the Polish government plans to allocate an additional 1.5 billion zlotys (approximately 350 million euros) for the modernization of barriers on the border with Belarus.

"In particular, the entire length of the existing barrier, which was built a few months ago, will be reinforced. The Silesian University of Technology and our engineers are working on strengthening the entire barrier. They guarantee that the barrier will be impassable," noted Polish Deputy Defence Minister Cezary Tomczyk.

1lurer.am

12. Which Makes Better Soldiers: DEI or Assimilation?

The sad irony is that it does not need to be either/or. We can assimilate Americans into the best fighting force in the world and treat each person with human dignity regardless of any of the list of orientations that exist.

May 17, 2024

Which Makes Better Soldiers: DEI or Assimilation?

By Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle (USA, Ret.)

americanthinker.com

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is divisive, as it emphasizes differences based on race, ethnicity, biological sex, gender identities, etc., which is opposed to the time-tested, traditional military culture emphasizing unity, teamwork, selflessness, sacrifice, and assimilation into the warrior ethos.

May 1969, a commercial bus full of sleepy recruits stopped during darkness at Fort Ord, CA. Two Drill Instructors (DIs) jumped on the bus and started screaming, “get off my bus, you dirtbags, and line up outside.” A diverse assortment of now wide-awake young men lined up in four rows and then shuffled/marched to sterile appearing billets with a platoon of 50 recruits in each open bay, gray double-decker bunks with sheets and a wool blanket on both sides of an aisle running down the middle of the bay. They were awake until 0200 scrubbing the billet floors and latrine; up at 0530 the next day.

The next day they marched with DIs yelling commands, to the long quartermaster warehouse to be issued clothing and gear. But, first a stop at the barber building with a line of barbers ready to buzz hair off which they did quickly leaving about 1/4 inch on the top and almost none elsewhere.

Inside the quartermaster building there was a long countertop with mostly civilians on the opposite side manning issue stations; the recruits moved from one station to the other getting standard Olive Drab issue clothes which they stuffed into duffle bags. Sizes for fatigues, socks, t-shirts, boots, etc. were based on the calibrated eyeball estimate of the QM guy behind the counter. The heavy duffle bags were carried back to the billets where the contents were arranged in foot and wall lockers, dress right dress, according to the SOP, inspected and enforced by the DIs.

All of this was done to erase the “back on the block” civilian mentality and quickly replace it with “you’re in the Army now” and don’t forget it mindset. No more personal identities, no more it’s about me, it is now about the “Green Machine, your ass is mine” and your personal identity as a civilian does not matter; it no longer exists — you are now part of the machine — you have one color — Green.

What was done in basic training was all about “Assimilation” and “Inclusion” into the military; a trainee’s “Diversity” did not matter. What mattered was giving up their past identity and becoming a part of the team — the Green Machine. Everyone was included regardless of race or ethnicity. Assimilation into the team grew with shared hardships, further motivated by group punishment imposed by DIs; when a trainee screwed up, normally everyone paid a price. Everyone dropped for 25, everyone ran extra distance, everyone was up until midnight cleaning the latrine — that is applied “Assimilation.” After a few weeks, real bonding developed to the point when a trainee started to fall out of a run, others would automatically drop back and pull him along to the finish. Camaraderie was developing according to the DI’s plan.

The DI’s objective was to break down trainees by suppressing their past identities and molding them into soldiers, believing in a common set of values, mission, and purpose. It was about removing the focus on “self” and putting the focus on selfless service with loyalty to each other and the mission; that was done by sharing challenging physical and mental hardships in Infantry Basic Training. The physical training (PT) was tough, as it served two purposes: one was to build the necessary physical strength and stamina to survive in combat, the other was to bond the team by creating mutual trust and confidence in each other’s physical abilities and motivation to succeed. One of the seven PT test events was the 150-yard man-carry where a trainee of equal weight would hoist another and run 150 yards, a timed event. This simulated carrying a fallen comrade under fire to safety and no one wanted to fail the test and let their buddy down. When approaching the end of eight weeks, some trainees had painful stress fractures in their feet due to the man-carry, but they refused to be medically recycled; they were determined to graduate from Infantry Basic Training on time with their platoon.

Today 68% of our military is overweight and/or obese. How many of them could hoist someone of equal weight and run 150 yards carrying a battle buddy to safety? How can one soldier trust another, recognizing this reality? This sad state of physical condition is representative of low standards of performance and readiness coming from DEI.

The bonding in basic training was reinforced by the reality frequently emphasized by the DIs saying “within a year, 90% of you will be fighting in Vietnam.” The point was driven home by the DIs further saying “you had better pay attention to this or you’ll get your ass shot off, or worse yet your buddy’s.”

This model of assimilation had been battle tested for centuries long before America came along and proven to work when civilians from diverse backgrounds are successfully assimilated into a homogeneous fighting force, leaving their “back on the block” identity behind. Conversely, DEI is divisive by focusing on “self” and self-identity as a member of an identity group based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. This is opposite of the DIs battle-tested model of team building and unit cohesion based on a common mission, selfless service, and sacrifice.

Contrary to the DEI slogan that “Diversity is Our Strength,” the historical truth and battle-tested reality is: “Unity and Assimilation are Our Strengths.”

Maj. General Joe Arbuckle, USA (Ret.) graduated from college in 1968, and entered the Army in 1969 as a private. Following training as a combat engineer, he was later commissioned upon graduating from Engineer Officer Candidate School in 1970. Having volunteered for duty as an Infantry Officer, he served a year in Vietnam on Advisory Team 22, embedded with the South Vietnamese Army. He has commanded at every rank from Lieutenant to Major General, specializing in the missile field.

Image: PickPik

americanthinker.com

13. The ‘America First’ Chaos Caucus Is Forcing a Moment of Truth

This is the fundamental question for all Americans concerning US national security, not just for one party or the other. Do we believe that the US must lead in the world in order to ensure our security or can retreat and retrench and still function in the global community with the prosperity and security we desire and demand?

The ‘America First’ Chaos Caucus Is Forcing a Moment of Truth

Does the Republican Party still believe in American leadership abroad?

By Kori Schake

The Atlantic · by Kori Schake · May 17, 2024

The United States Congress took six months to approve a supplemental spending bill that includes aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The drama, legislative maneuvering, and threats to remove a second speaker of the House of Representatives have left reasonable people asking what, exactly, is going on with Republican legislators: Have they recognized the perilous state of the world and the importance of U.S. leadership? Or was the difficulty in securing the aid the real signal worth paying attention to—making Republican support for the assistance just a last gasp of a conservative internationalism that is no longer a going concern?

In the breach between these two narratives lies the future of the Republican Party—whether it has become wholly beholden to the America First proclivities of Donald Trump or can be wrenched back to the reliably internationalist foreign policy of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

Former President Trump has long questioned the value to the U.S. of international alliances, trade, and treaties, and involvement in global institutions. Senator J. D. Vance of Ohio, who propounds the Trumpian view, recently said of the fight over the supplemental spending bill: “Notwithstanding some lingering Cold Warriors, we’re winning the debate because reality is on our side.” And Vance may be right about who’s winning: 22 of the 49 Republicans in the Senate voted for the supplemental when it was presented in February, at a time when Trump was agitating against it; Speaker of the House Mike Johnson persuaded Trump to stay on the sidelines for the April vote, and five more Republican senators opposed the legislation anyway. That suggests a rising, not ebbing, tide.

If Vance is correct, this could be the last aid package for Ukraine—meaning that Ukraine will ultimately lose its war with Russia. Republicans will have the U.S. pull away from alliance commitments in Asia and Europe and withdraw from participating in trade agreements and international institutions.

Anne Applebaum: The GOP’s Pro-Russia caucus lost. Now Ukraine has to win.

But Republican lawmakers and voters are far from united around this worldview. Despite the onslaught against internationalism, Republican voter support for NATO has decreased only marginally, from 44 percent in 2015 to 43 percent currently. And despite some radical party members’ fulminating that Republicans who’d voted for the supplemental would be hounded by voters, no backlash actually took place.

Some Republican legislators who supported the supplemental spoke of it in terms redolent of the internationalist Republican tradition. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole, of Oklahoma, said: “This House just showed tyrants and despots who wish harm upon us and our allies that we will not waver as the beacon of leadership and liberty.” Johnson, who’d formerly voted against aid to Ukraine, put his job on the line to get the bill passed, in the name of doing what he said was “the right thing.” Representative Mike McCaul of Texas, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, described the speaker’s reversal as “transformational … he’s realizing that the world depends on this.” And if that is indeed where Johnson stands, he does so in the company of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has indicated that he will commit his final two years in the Senate to restoring Republican internationalism.

Ultimately, the Republican Party’s direction will become clear based on the policies it chooses to oppose or support. The supplemental was one test; some of the others are less high-profile but at least as consequential, if not more so, because they concern the very building blocks of a conservative international order. Given that the leader of the Republican Party does not favor these ideas, creating policies to advance them will be difficult. But difficult is not impossible, as the success of the supplemental shows.

For example: Will Republicans fight to increase defense spending? The past four presidential administrations have failed to spend even what was needed to carry out their own national-security strategies—and this at a time when the world has been growing more dangerous, as U.S. adversaries have coalesced into an axis of authoritarian powers. Defense spending is popular with the public: In a Reagan Institute poll, 77 percent of Americans said that they favored bumping it up. But doing so will require a reordering of priorities, whether through reforming entitlements, raising taxes, shifting money from domestic to defense budgets, adopting policies that speed economic growth, or allowing deficits to continue to balloon. Republican willingness to make these hard choices in order to spend more on defense—particularly on ship building and munitions stocks—will be a leading indicator as to whether the internationalists among them are gaining ground.

So, too, will the Republican stance toward the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes rules for navigation and boundaries for the exploitation of maritime resources. The convention commits countries to recognizing that territorial waters become international 12 nautical miles from shorelines, and it delineates countries’ exclusive national zones for mining and fishing. In 1994, the United States signed the convention, which has also been signed by 168 other nations and the European Union. But the U.S. Senate has so far refused to ratify it. Conservatives are concerned that the convention impinges on U.S. sovereignty; even the urging of former President George W. Bush, when he was in office, failed to convince them otherwise.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea sets terms that the United States already abides by and enforces on other countries. Without it, America may be forced to comply with the rules its adversaries—chiefly Russia and China—prefer to establish, or else to spend time and money protecting itself and its allies against those countries’ maritime activities. Every living chief of naval operations advocates the convention’s passage. And countries contending with Chinese claims in the South China Sea view U.S. ratification as an indicator of American commitment to the rules-based order on which they rely. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democrats Mazie Hirono and Tim Kaine have introduced a resolution to ratify the convention. Republicans will have to decide whether they will provide the votes to pass it or make hostility to treaties a hallmark of their party.

George Packer: ‘We only need some metal things’

Similarly, the GOP will need to decide exactly what its posture will be on international free trade. Efforts to integrate China into the global economic order on equal terms failed; as a result, both American parties lost their appetite for international trade agreements and turned instead to imposing punitive tariffs on China and restricting its market access. This approach has not been successful either. In fact, the bipartisan retreat from global trade agreements as a lever of international power comes at a time when more Americans—eight in 10—view international trade as beneficial to consumers such as themselves than at any other time in the past 50 years. My American Enterprise Institute colleagues Dan Blumenthal and Derek Scissors have argued for updating trade agreements in the Western Hemisphere—as the Trump administration did with the North American Free Trade Agreement—while prioritizing new agreements with Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Indonesia. A truly internationalist Republican Party will pursue such a policy, which would strengthen the trade links among Western nations.

In recent years, the United States has withdrawn from dominant roles in numerous international institutions. Neither the Trump administration nor the Biden administration bothered to nominate judges for the World Trade Organization, greatly weakening that body. Meanwhile, China secured leadership roles in Interpol and in the UN agencies that regulate international telecommunications, air routes, and agricultural and industrial assistance. China nearly assumed leadership of the UN’s international maritime organization, which would have allowed it to rewrite the rules for freedom of navigation. Perhaps Republicans can be persuaded that ceding such positions to China is damaging. Much as with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Washington and its allies can either lead the institutions that set and enforce rules or work to shield their interests from the reach of them. Setting the rules is more cost-effective.

How the Republican Party addresses these nuts-and-bolts national-security policies will reveal its true direction—whether it will continue to lurch toward Senator Vance’s America First policies or return to the values it came to embody after World War II. Even if Donald Trump—the avatar and motive force behind America First—returns to the presidency, Speaker Johnson’s adroit management of the supplemental bill shows that Congress is not powerless. By reasserting its constitutional prerogatives, the legislature can constrain the executive. But for that to happen on national security, Republicans have to believe that American security and prosperity require active engagement in the world.

The Atlantic · by Kori Schake · May 17, 2024

14. Here’s how the US Army’s multidomain task force is contributing to AUKUS

Who is working the human domain? Oh that's right we do not believe in that one.

Here’s how the US Army’s multidomain task force is contributing to AUKUS

Defense News · by Jen Judson · May 17, 2024

HONOLULU — The U.S. Army’s 3rd Multidomain Task Force, headquartered in Hawaii, is getting officers from both Australia and the U.K. this summer and will work on advancing technology that’s. focus of the second pillar of the AUKUS pact, according to U.S. Army Pacific Commander Gen. Charles Flynn.

Australia is sending five officers while the U.K. is sending three to embed in the MDTF.

“This is what I’ll call the sort of initial seed corn of creating that combined capability,” Flynn told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s LANPAC conference here.

“I believe these formations and the contributions at least from those two countries are absolutely complementary and will accelerate a lot of activities and a lot of work that we need to do together in AUKUS Pillar 2,” he said.

The AUKUS collaboration, unveiled in 2021, is organized into two pillars of effort. The first focuses on nuclear-powered submarines; the second covers critical technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonics and autonomy.

The officers from the two countries “are coming from the work that they are doing in their various operational concepts, but they also are bringing skill sets like cyber, space, electronic warfare, information operations, [and] targeting,” Flynn said.

Working on technology related to AUKUS Pillar 2 focus areas is a logical fit for the Multidomain Task Force. The first MDTF stood up in 2018 as an experimental unit to explore Multidomain Operations as the Army drafted its doctrine. The service decided it would make the MDTF an operational unit and has since decided to grow four more in various stages of formation.

There are three MDTFs planned for the Pacific. The 1st MDTF is nearly complete in building out its force structure and the 3rd MDTF, which was established in September 2022, is still growing. The 4th MDTF is not yet established.

Each MDTF uses assets that include electronic warfare capabilities, unmanned aircraft systems, high-altitude balloons and space sensors as part of its Multidomain Effects Battalion.

Additionally, the MDTF will have a unit capable of delivering long-range fires using the new Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, fired from High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems. Australia and the U.S. are already co-developing that capability.

“AUKUS Pillar 2 is really about accelerating artificial intelligence and machine learning aspects,” Col. Michael Rose, the commander of the 3rd MDTF told Defense News at LANPAC.

Part of the PrSM development effort includes using space and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities as well as AI and machine learning to automate certain aspects of the kill chain, Rose explained.

AI and machine learning will also contribute to decision making and understanding the environment in other areas like using drones and countering them, Rose added.

While developing technology which accomplish efforts within AUKUS Pillar 2 is not stated objective for a multinational, combined MDTF, Rose said, it’s a natural fit to do some of that work.

“We have a continued set of work with the Australians and now, more and more, the United Kingdom partners, to build coordination mechanisms so that we can really accelerate our interoperability and ultimately achieve interchangeability,” Rose said.

“In the event we have to pivot to crisis or conflict, we’ve already got the human connections, we’ve got the procedural connections and we’ve got the technological connections to be able to do that and it offers commanders quite a lot of optionality,” he added.

About Jen Judson

Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

15. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping take radically different approaches to warfare

We ignore these differences at our peril. Unfortunately we want to focus on the Russian way of war because we do ont understand the CHinese way of war-most importantly we only define war as large scale combat operations. We do not have an appreciation of war (struggle) across the spectrum of conflict envisioned by China even when they spoon feed it to us in Unrestricted Warfare. Or when Mao tells us that war is politics with bloodshed and politics is war without bloodshed. For China, war is war. For the US, war is only war when it is large scale combat operations.

Excerpts:

It is slogging, firepower-centric warfare, and experts recognize a pattern. In multiple conflicts — Napoleon’s invasion, World War II, Chechnya — Russia started weak, and ended strong.

“After well-known miscalculations and blunders, the overall strategy is quite clear,” said Gastone Breccia, a military historian at the University of Pavia. “Conduct a series of battles of attrition, wearing down Ukraine’s resources and Western will to help Ukrainians fight on.”

Mr. Xi’s tactics are subtler.

Chinese forces have not fired a shot since 1988. Instead, Beijing uses grey-zone tactics of incremental probes and advances, swift de-escalation, cognitive warfare, cyber ops and economic leverage: “fighting without fighting.”

‘”Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace: Divinely mysterious he is inaudible, thus he is the master of his enemy’s fate,’” said Mr. Breccia. “Xi seems risk-averse as he is playing by the rules of Chinese warfare: Win by other means, avoid open battle, conquer your objective intact.”

With no clear line between combat and non-combat, and with operations undertaken by both civilians and servicemen, Chinese tactics are hard to confront said Michael Cunningham, a China specialist with Heritage Foundation. “It is warfare that is not bounded in any particular realm; it could be multiple realms.”

These tactics present challenges for traditionally postured Western militaries. Meanwhile, Moscow’s warriors — unlike the lightly armed insurgents Western troops battled in the war on terror — demand deterrence via mass and sustainability.

“There’s intersection of [grey-zone tactics] with traditional security concerns,” Peter Dean, a foreign policy and defense specialist at Sydney University told the recent Asan Plenum, a security conference in Seoul. “Old concepts are coming back to the fore reinforced by Ukraine: National resilience is really key.”

Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping take radically different approaches to warfare

washingtontimes.com · by Andrew Salmon

By - The Washington Times - Sunday, May 19, 2024

ANALYSIS:

SEOUL, South Korea — Despite the amity they display, the world’s two leading anti-Western leaders — Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin — are far from aligned when it comes to war-making.

Celebrating the 75th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic relations, Mr. Xi feted Mr. Putin at last week’s two-day summit, while talking up “strategic cooperation.”

Yet the partners’ conflict approaches do not just differ from those of the United States — they diverge from each other.

Washington has engaged in multiple expeditionary wars to support allies and overthrow regimes. None of its conflicts for over a century, however, has aimed at actual territorial conquest.

Conversely, China’s and Russia’s wars share old-fashioned aims.

Under Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, their two countries have deployed forces around their national peripheries to maintain, restore or expand their states’ territories, people and resources in perpetuity.

Bar Moscow’s mission in Syria to shore up President Bashir Assad, all the wars fought by Mr. Putin, who took power in 1999, have shared these aims.

The second Chechen war forcefully maintained that republic within the Russian Federation. Moscow’s Georgia intervention ended with two chunks of Georgian territory in Russian hands.

The Kremlin’s revanchist seizure of Crimea, intervention in Donbas and invasion of Ukraine are all grabs of land that are absorbed into Russia.

Under Mr. Xi, who entered office in 2013, Chinese forces have seized ground across the South China Sea, terraforming uninhabited reefs and islets into dominant land-sea bases. Coast guards and centrally directed fishing fleets deny the area and its marine resources to Southeast Asian neighbors.

Beijing is also inching toward India in the high Himalayas and toward Taiwan in the Taiwan Strait. Similar tactics have been resisted by Tokyo around the Japanese-administered Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.

However, Mr. Xi’s and Mr. Putin’s strategies differ radically. Russian warfare is deadly and destructive; Chinese warfare, not always non-lethal, is non-kinetic.

“Xi is a far subtler leader than Putin: Think of him as a sophisticated businessman who gets you to sign a contract that will ensure your demise,” said Geoffrey Cain, author of “The Perfect Police State.” “Putin is the gangster who doesn’t care if you sign, and will shoot you in the back of the head.”

Though both capitals confront the West, Beijing, despite its diplomatic and economic support, may be uncomfortable with Moscow’s sledgehammer aggression.

The 2022 term “unlimited partnership” has largely disappeared from Chinese state media. Today, Li Ziguo, who directs the Department for European-Central Asian Studies at China’s Institute of International Studies, told Xinhua News: “China and Russia have been adhering to the principles of non-alliance, non-confrontation and not targeting any third party.”

That outlook may explain why Mr. Xi has not armed Mr. Putin with the high-tech weapons China wields, forcing Russia into an undignified position: Turning to low-tier players Iran and North Korea.

It may also evidence a hidden political agenda, experts say: making Moscow Beijing’s subordinate.

Putin’s wars, Xi’s wars

The carnage and destruction unleashed upon Ukraine mirrors that of the first conflict Mr. Putin oversaw as president, the second Chechen War. But unlike prior victories, his Ukraine gamble has seen humiliations and defeats.

The initial 2022 assault upon Ukraine amid the spring wet season saw Russian armor advancing in road columns — dispositions easily ambushed. Subsequently, Russian forces lost major ground in surprise Ukrainian counterattacks in the east and the south. Moscow’s Black Sea fleet was decimated by drones and missiles.

Since Kyiv’s summer 2023 offensive broke its teeth on Russian defenses, Moscow’s forces have turned the tide and regained momentum.

In the Donbas, they are grinding inexorably forward, seizing ruined town after ruined town. On May 10, they opened a new front that potentially threatens Kharkiv, Ukraine‘s second city, with long-range fire or siege — a move that is stretching Kyiv’s reserves.

It is slogging, firepower-centric warfare, and experts recognize a pattern. In multiple conflicts — Napoleon’s invasion, World War II, Chechnya — Russia started weak, and ended strong.

“After well-known miscalculations and blunders, the overall strategy is quite clear,” said Gastone Breccia, a military historian at the University of Pavia. “Conduct a series of battles of attrition, wearing down Ukraine’s resources and Western will to help Ukrainians fight on.”

Mr. Xi’s tactics are subtler.

Chinese forces have not fired a shot since 1988. Instead, Beijing uses grey-zone tactics of incremental probes and advances, swift de-escalation, cognitive warfare, cyber ops and economic leverage: “fighting without fighting.”

‘”Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace: Divinely mysterious he is inaudible, thus he is the master of his enemy’s fate,’” said Mr. Breccia. “Xi seems risk-averse as he is playing by the rules of Chinese warfare: Win by other means, avoid open battle, conquer your objective intact.”

With no clear line between combat and non-combat, and with operations undertaken by both civilians and servicemen, Chinese tactics are hard to confront said Michael Cunningham, a China specialist with Heritage Foundation. “It is warfare that is not bounded in any particular realm; it could be multiple realms.”

These tactics present challenges for traditionally postured Western militaries. Meanwhile, Moscow’s warriors — unlike the lightly armed insurgents Western troops battled in the war on terror — demand deterrence via mass and sustainability.

“There’s intersection of [grey-zone tactics] with traditional security concerns,” Peter Dean, a foreign policy and defense specialist at Sydney University told the recent Asan Plenum, a security conference in Seoul. “Old concepts are coming back to the fore reinforced by Ukraine: National resilience is really key.”

Xi vs. Putin?

One aspect of Beijing policymaking is uncomfortable for China hawks in the West.

Chinese trade with Russia has risen almost three-fold in a decade. Beijing faces criticism for supplying Moscow with dual-use components, but has not offered actual arms even as Western nations supply Kyiv with a vast armory.

Some believe Xi cannot arm Russia for fear his trade-reliant economy will be hammered by Western sanctions. Others reckon Xi is playing a secret double game that nods to older China-Soviet rivalries.

China seeks to “turn Russia into a proxy for Chinese interests,” said Mr. Cain, policy director at NGO the Tech Integrity Project. The tactic is “making the Russian economy technologically reliant upon China, which is willing to offer it in bulk, and at great discounts.”

“Keep Russia at bay while helping her,” added Mr. Breccia. “Perfect Chinese art of war!”

• Andrew Salmon can be reached at asalmon@washingtontimes.com.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide

washingtontimes.com · by Andrew Salmon

16. As American global hegemony ends, multi-alignment rises

Excerpts:

The success of multi-alignment in fostering peace and security hinges on a delicate balancing act. While fostering cooperation across geopolitical divides is crucial, it’s equally important for regional and global great powers to establish and maintain a stable balance of power, as unchecked dominance by any single power — or even the pursuit of regional or global dominance — can breed instability.

The key lies in maintaining equilibrium. Major powers can contribute by engaging in strategic dialogues, promoting regional security initiatives and avoiding actions that tilt the balance towards unilateral advantage. This doesn’t preclude competition, but simply ensures it occurs within a framework that prioritizes peaceful coexistence.

The success of multi-alignment hinges on a commitment to strategic agility and a nuanced understanding of national interests. Major powers must prioritize actions that promote a stable balance, avoiding unilateral maneuvers that could trigger regional tensions or ignite proxy conflicts. By embracing this new dynamic and working collaboratively within a framework of mutual respect, the international community can leverage the multipolar shift to create a more peaceful and prosperous world order.

The time for dominance is over; the time for a strategic balancing act has begun.

As American global hegemony ends, multi-alignment rises

BY ANDREW LATHAM, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/18/24 4:00 PM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4671482-as-american-global-hegemony-ends-multi-alignment-rises/

Forget the “Pax Americana.” The unipolar moment, that brief interlude where the United States reigned supreme, is over. China’s rise, coupled with a growing discontent with the American-led rules-based international order, has ushered in a new era: a multipolar world with multiple power centers jostling for influence.

This dynamic shift demands a new foreign policy strategy on the part of all states. Enter multi-alignment, a strategic response to this new multipolar reality that involves countries forging partnerships across ideological and geopolitical divides to advance their national interests.

Unlike the rigid alliances of the Cold War, multi-alignment involves a strategic flexibility that empowers nations to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world. These partnerships are often issue-specific and impermanent, allowing countries to cooperate with different great powers depending on the context.

For instance, a nation might partner with the U.S. on matters of regional security while forging economic ties with China. This adaptability ensures that a country’s national interests are prioritized — if cooperation with a particular power becomes detrimental, they can shift their focus and seek partnerships elsewhere.

This approach is particularly attractive for middle powers. These countries, with growing influence but not the global reach of superpowers, can leverage their strategic weight to extract benefits from various partners within the multipolar system; they can secure vital resources, expand their economic opportunities and exert greater influence on the international stage. In essence, multi-alignment allows middle powers to play multiple sides, maximizing their strategic gains within a multipolar landscape.

The Middle East is shifting dramatically under the influence of multi-alignment. Once a region defined by a rigid U.S.-led alliance system, the rise of China is rewriting the script. A powerful illustration of this transformation is China’s recent success in brokering a thaw between regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia. This unprecedented diplomatic feat underscores the transformative power of multi-alignment, as traditional allies are no longer bound by rigid geopolitical ties or past membership in a bloc, but are free to pursue partnerships based on specific interests.

The implications for the Middle East are profound, potentially paving the way for a more stable regional order. We see this with how Saudi Arabia, a long-standing American ally, is deepening economic ties with China for investment and diversification away from oil dependence, while still maintaining its security relationship with the U.S. Similarly, Gulf states like the United Arab Emirates have fostered partnerships with both China and Russia, seeking economic opportunities and diplomatic support on regional issues. This multi-alignment allows these states to navigate the complexities of a multipolar world and secure their interests within the new power dynamic.

In Southeast Asia, countries like Vietnam and Indonesia have long balanced relations between the U.S. and China, but China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea has spurred a reevaluation. Vietnam, despite its communist ideology, has strengthened its defense ties with the U.S. while maintaining economic relations with China. Indonesia, meanwhile, seeks to maintain its neutrality but has also engaged in joint military exercises with both the U.S. and China. This multi-alignment strategy allows these countries to hedge against Chinese dominance while ensuring access to vital markets in a multipolar economic landscape.

The rise of multi-alignment within a multipolar world presents both opportunities and challenges for international peace and security. On the one hand, it offers a more nuanced approach to global challenges. With power diffused across multiple actors, decisionmaking becomes less centralized and more responsive to specific regional contexts. This allows for solutions tailored to the unique needs of each situation, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Multi-alignment can also incentivize cooperation between former rivals on shared threats like climate change or pandemics, encouraging countries to collaborate on solutions despite past geopolitical differences.

On the other hand, the erosion of clear-cut geopolitical blocs presents potential risks. The international landscape can become more fluid and unpredictable, making it difficult to anticipate the actions of states no longer bound by rigid alliances. This fluidity can intensify competition for influence between major powers, potentially leading to proxy conflicts and heightened regional tensions. The lack of strong alliances can make it more challenging to coordinate responses to global crises; forging consensus to address a major crisis could become a more cumbersome process.

The rise of multi-alignment necessitates a fundamental shift in how international relations are conducted. Major powers must transition from a zero-sum competition mindset to one that fosters more agile frameworks that address the concerns of a wider range of actors, not just traditional allies, to ensure stability and navigate the complexities of multipolarity.

International institutions also require adaptation. Strengthening regional organizations can provide crucial platforms for dialogue and cooperation on issues of shared concern. Fostering dialogue across geopolitical divides, even between former rivals, becomes essential.

The success of multi-alignment in fostering peace and security hinges on a delicate balancing act. While fostering cooperation across geopolitical divides is crucial, it’s equally important for regional and global great powers to establish and maintain a stable balance of power, as unchecked dominance by any single power — or even the pursuit of regional or global dominance — can breed instability.

The key lies in maintaining equilibrium. Major powers can contribute by engaging in strategic dialogues, promoting regional security initiatives and avoiding actions that tilt the balance towards unilateral advantage. This doesn’t preclude competition, but simply ensures it occurs within a framework that prioritizes peaceful coexistence.

The success of multi-alignment hinges on a commitment to strategic agility and a nuanced understanding of national interests. Major powers must prioritize actions that promote a stable balance, avoiding unilateral maneuvers that could trigger regional tensions or ignite proxy conflicts. By embracing this new dynamic and working collaboratively within a framework of mutual respect, the international community can leverage the multipolar shift to create a more peaceful and prosperous world order.

The time for dominance is over; the time for a strategic balancing act has begun.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. Follow him @aalatham.

17. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping Embrace at Beijing, but Will This Marriage of Convenience Blossom Into a Romance?

Interestingly Korea looms large in this article. Donald Kirk sees the connection of north Korea to all of the malign actors even though most of what they do is either under the radar or ignored by most of the press and pundits.

Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping Embrace at Beijing, but Will This Marriage of Convenience Blossom Into a Romance?

They’ve eyed one another with suspicion for centuries, and not so long ago they were exchanging shots across the Amur River in Siberia.

DONALD KIRK

Friday, May 17, 2024

05:58:26 am

nysun.com

Call it a marriage of convenience, but the embrace between the leaders of America’s two Eurasian foes, President Putin and President Xi, raises the question of how long their romance will last.

While the Chinese and Russian dictators, meeting at Beijing, profess the strength of their relationship, they can hardly dispel historic hostilities beneath appearances.

“Russia has every interest in destabilizing NATO,” observed a former Asia director on the National Security Council, Michael Green. “The Chinese are worried that North Korea is not listening to them.”

Those contrasting aims epitomize much deeper differences as outlined by Mr. Green, a key adviser on Asia in the White House for five years during the George W. Bush presidency.

“It’s a tough situation and only benefits North Korea,” Mr. Green, now at the University of Sydney, tells the Sun. “The Russians are firing North Korean shells against the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians are firing South Korean shells at Russia.”

Presidents Putin and Xi at the National Centre for the Performing Arts, Beijing, May 16, 2024. Sergei Guneyev, Sputnik, Kremlin pool via AP

So where does that leave China? While Mr. Putin is in Beijing begging Mr. Xi for still more aid, the Chinese president is reluctant to go beyond economic deals – and his own plan for winding down the war.

North Korea, meanwhile, “is not just sending munitions,” said the Rand Corporation’s long-time Asia analyst, Bruce Bennett, at a forum at Seoul sponsored by South Korea’s Asan Institute. “They’re sending their own people to observe the battlefield.”

No matter how deeply Mr. Xi affirms China’s bond to Russia, America and China also “have converging interests,” said a former British diplomat, John Everard, who served as Britain’s ambassador to North Korea from 2006 to 2008.

“China is as concerned as the U.S. about North Korean nuclear tests,” he told the Asan forum. “Pyongyang would like to be able to play China versus” Russia — a reminder of how Pyongyang courted both Beijing and Moscow for aid before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

As long as Russia counts on North Korea for armaments ranging from missiles to artillery shells, Mr. Everard doubts Moscow “is exercising any restraint” over the North’s nuclear ambitions. By contrast, “China has imposed real constraints,” he said, dissuading North Korea’s Kim Jong-un from ordering any nuclear tests since 2017.

China and Russia have grown closer in recent years, as seen in their united opposition in the Security Council to American attempts to impose new sanctions on North Korea, but they’ve eyed one another with suspicion for centuries. In the 1960s and 1970s, they were exchanging shots across the Amur River in Siberia.

“Despite these areas of convergence, Russia and China are also driven apart by historical animosities,” writes a senior fellow of the Asia Society, Philipp Ivanov. “Their partnership is regularly tested by a lack of strategic trust, divergent foreign policy agendas, and power asymmetry.”

The suspicion with which China views Russia is clear from the irony of the Chinese agreeing to top-level meetings with North Korea’s arch enemies before and after the Xi-Putin summit.

South Korea’s foreign minister, Cho Tae-yul, was in Beijing this week to see his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi. More incredibly, South Korea’s President Yoon is hosting a “trilateral summit” of the leaders of Japan and China at Seoul on May 26.

No, Mr. Xi won’t be there. He’s sending his premier, Li Qiang, technically his equal in rank, to meet not only Mr. Yoon but also Japan’s prime minister, Fumio Kishida. Mr. Li will be certain to say exactly what Mr. Xi wants as all three affirm their commitment to peace and get down to sorting out sensitive economic issues.

Meanwhile, Mr. Putin is expected again to display his infatuation with Mr. Kim, who agreed to shower him with weapons when they met at the Cosmodrome by the Amur River in September.

Mr. Putin “will be going back to North Korea for another summit,” predicts the senior fellow for North Korea at the Council on Foreign Relations, Sue Mi Terry. “North Korea has complete impunity. For the foreseeable future, there’s a convergence of interests between Russia, China and North Korea.”

nysun.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