Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"Well behaved women seldom make history."

– Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

"Unexpressed emotions never die. They are buried alive and they will come forth later in uglier ways."

– Sigmund Freud

"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

– Epictetus

1. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 31, 2024

2. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, May 31, 2024

3. The failed Gaza pier proves our military isn’t prepared for extreme weather

4. China-Taiwan Weekly Update, May 30, 2024

5. NSA Warns iPhone And Android Users To Turn It Off And On Again

6. Navy’s former second-highest-ranking officer arrested, charged with bribery

7. Hamas, Communism, and the End of America

8. Russia opens a new front: Mapping three key battles in the Ukrainian war

9. It’s starting to look like the 1930s for all the wrong reasons

10. No breakthrough, no breakdown at Shangri-La

11. Inside a huge U.S. military exercise in Africa to counter terrorism and Russia and China's growing influence

12. Ukraine's special forces have developed new tech that allows drones to fly without GPS, so Russia can't jam them: report

13. Austin: Nations Around Indo-Pacific Uniting Around Shared Values

14. Special Forces veteran turned filmmaker spotlights unsung heroes in new docuseries

15. Get Serious About the Science of Influence

16. Soldier honors Native American heritage after religious accommodation

17. How the World Can Deal With Trump

18. Army chief lays out what he wants from industry for C2 Next

19. More Biden Half Measures for Ukraine

1. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 31, 2024

Read the entire SITREP here: https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-31-2024

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 31, 2024

Key Takeaways:

US and German officials confirmed that the United States and Germany have changed their policies to allow Ukraine to use US- and German-provided weapons to strike Russian territory with some restrictions but did not offer precise details about these restrictions.
Ukrainian forces conducted a series of drone and missile strikes against a Russian long-range radar system in occupied Crimea and an oil depot in Krasnodar Krai on May 31 following the May 30 Ukrainian strike against the Kerch Strait ferry crossing.
Ukraine signed long-term bilateral security agreements with Sweden, Iceland, and Norway on May 31.
Russia's continued efforts to rally Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member countries around an imagined confrontation with the West likely stems from Russian concerns about the CSTO's longevity as a vector for Russian influence.
Although Russian forces made significant tactical gains in northern Kharkiv Oblast in early May 2024, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov heavily overestimated Russian advances in Ukraine since the start of 2024.
Ukraine and Russia conducted a one-for-one prisoner of war (POW) exchange on May 31, the first POW exchange since February 8.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) announced on May 31 that it will not join the June 2024 Ukraine peace summit.
Russian forces recently advanced near Vovchansk, Avdiivka, and Donetsk City.
Russian State Duma Information Policy Committee Chairperson Alexander Khinshtein announced on May 30 that he and Duma Security Committee Chairperson Vasily Piskarev submitted a bill for the Duma's consideration that would eliminate toll fees for Russian military, Rosgvardia, and Federal Security Service (FSB) vehicles.

2. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, May 31, 2024

Read the entire SITREP here: https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-may-31-2024

Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, May 31, 2024

Key Takeaways:

Ceasefire Negotiations: US President Joe Biden urged Hamas to accept the latest Israeli ceasefire and hostage-release proposal. The proposal includes three phases to end the war, release Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and begin reconstruction in the Gaza Strip.
Gaza Strip: The IDF withdrew completely from Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip after weeks of intense fighting there. Hamas and the other Palestinian militias will almost certainly begin reconstituting their forces there as Israeli forces leave.
Iran: Candidates have continued registering for the Iranian presidential election in June 2024. Among the candidates are prominent moderate politicians, some of whom could be particularly strong contenders for the presidency.
Iraq: The UN Security Council voted unanimously to end the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq at the end of 2025.
Yemen: The United States and the United Kingdom struck 21 Houthi targets in Yemen and over the Red Sea.

3. The failed Gaza pier proves our military isn’t prepared for extreme weather

This is about much more than the Gaza pier. It outlines a number of missions that were impacted by the weather. The Admiral claims China takes the weather more seriously than the US (At least Sun Tzu did).

But on a separate note I bet there are many non-military people (and probably the press, pundits, and policymakers) who scratch their heads about the first paragraph. Why is it that the US Army was building a pier and not the US Navy? Most of us would think that should be a Navy function. It is like Air Defense. Why is the Army responsible for Air and Missile Defense? Why are THAAD and Patriot Army systems and not Air Force Systems?

Per the weather issue, this is a case of where you stand depends on where you sit. Note the author's affiliations/experience which makes him well qualified to make these comments and write this essay.

Excerpt:

As I have written elsewhere, the Biden administration’s approach to the environment is foolishly focused on climate change mitigation through greenhouse gas emission reductions. Instead of attempting to tackle climate change, the Department of Defense needs to target climate resilience and adaptation, which can only be done by preparing for the weather and climate events that affect operations and installations.

Barely mentioned in the department’s climate plan is the most effective way to be prepared: improve short-term, sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasts for weather, water and ice. This can be accomplished by expanding the network of environmental observation systems, including satellites, buoys, ships and drones to characterize ocean and atmospheric conditions; improving the numerical models used to predict the state of the physical environment; and employing AI-enabled decision support tools that ensure the military avoids environmental mission kills.

The failed Gaza pier proves our military isn’t prepared for extreme weather

BY TIM GALLAUDET, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/31/24 8:00 AM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4693791-gaza-pier-failed-extreme-weather-military/

The U.S. Army’s recent difficulties in utilizing its $320 million floating pier to deliver humanitarian aid into Gaza is a warning that the Department of Defense is failing to adequately prepare for and deal with weather-related hazards.

High seas caused four of the landing craft to become unmoored, resulting in their beaching on the Eastern Mediterranean shore. This was preceded by the injury of three soldiers supporting the pier operation, one of whom was critically injured. Such hazardous conditions should have come as no surprise to the U.S. Central Command leaders overseeing this operation, as severe weather delayed the mission by several days in the first place.

This concerning lack of preparation cannot be for lack of attention, as the Gaza pier was a top policy priority in President Biden’s State of the Union address this year. One would hope that political pressure from the White House did not force the Pentagon to disregard its safety standards and thereby place the lives of the U.S. service members involved with the operation at risk.

Unfortunately, the environmental impacts involving the Gaza pier cannot be ascribed as an isolated incident.

Just this week, dozens of Navy TH-73 helicopters were damaged due to high winds at Naval Air Station Whiting Field in Florida. Earlier this year, high sea state was a factor when two Navy SEALs were lost at sea off Somalia while conducting a raid on a vessel illegally transporting lethal aid from Iran to Houthi rebels in Yemen. Challenging weather conditions also contributed to the crash of an Air Force F-16 in South Korea last year.

Before those incidents, 2022 saw a string of significant weather-related mishaps for the Defense Department, including a Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey aircraft that crashed in Norway and killed four Marines; 10 Navy helicopters that were damaged during a thunderstorm over Norfolk Naval Station; a Navy jet that was blown overboard from an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean; and the tragic death of three Army soldiers and injury of 12 others during separate incidents in Georgia involving a lightning strike and a fallen tree in a thunderstorm.

If America’s military is succumbing to the environment during these training and operational events, what will happen if it is called upon to defend Taiwan against an attack by China? When we consider that the Gaza pier is a relatively modest example of Joint Logistics Over the Shore, and that China’s maritime logistics footprint outclasses that of the U.S. by orders of magnitude, we should be gravely concerned.

We also know that China’s military has taken the environment seriously for centuries.

In the fifth century B.C., Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu famously wrote, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” His use of “Heaven and Earth” referred to seasonal weather patterns and terrain.

Importantly, he possessed a broader view that warfighting must not only consider avoiding weather and climate hazards, but also leverage the fact that environmental conditions could be used for tactical, operational and strategic advantage. Just as high ground provides a superior position in land warfare, knowledge of the occurrence of storms, flooding, extreme heat and cold, blowing dust and fog, wind patterns, sea state, ocean and river currents, and even ocean and atmospheric density profiles can be used to make decisive gains over an adversary.

As I have written elsewhere, the Biden administration’s approach to the environment is foolishly focused on climate change mitigation through greenhouse gas emission reductions. Instead of attempting to tackle climate change, the Department of Defense needs to target climate resilience and adaptation, which can only be done by preparing for the weather and climate events that affect operations and installations.

Barely mentioned in the department’s climate plan is the most effective way to be prepared: improve short-term, sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasts for weather, water and ice. This can be accomplished by expanding the network of environmental observation systems, including satellites, buoys, ships and drones to characterize ocean and atmospheric conditions; improving the numerical models used to predict the state of the physical environment; and employing AI-enabled decision support tools that ensure the military avoids environmental mission kills.

Fortunately, solutions to this problem set are close at hand. As described in my recent testimony during a Senate Budget Committee hearing, the private sector is making rapid advances in collecting weather and ocean data, predicting dynamic environmental conditions in all domains, and communicating the insights and impacts for a wide range of users. Just as NASA is doing with SpaceX, the Department of Defense would do well to harness the rising tide of innovative startups that are making transformational advancements in these capabilities.

The impacts from heavy weather on the Gaza pier operation were predictable and should have been prevented with proper planning. The U.S. must learn from this mistake and improve how it considers environmental conditions in planning and executing operational logistics. In the coming confrontation with China over Taiwan, the scales and stakes will be so much greater that failing to do so will be nothing less than death by a thousand cuts.

Rear Admiral (ret.) Tim Gallaudet is the former acting administrator and deputy administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, acting undersecretary and assistant secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and commander of the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command.

4. China-Taiwan Weekly Update, May 30, 2024

Read the entire update at the link: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-weekly-update-may-30-2024

China-Taiwan Weekly Update, May 30, 2024

Key Takeaways

Taiwan’s opposition-led Legislative Yuan passed legislative reforms to strengthen the legislature’s oversight powers over the government.
At least 45 Taiwanese musicians, actors, and other celebrities shared a post by PRC state media CCTV on the social media platform Weibo in support of “reunification.”
The CCP rejected opportunities that the ROC government has offered to restart cross-strait exchanges and cool down tensions.
The PRC Ministry of Defense and state media selectively publicized comments from the UN Secretary-General’s spokesperson to bolster its stance that Taiwan is a part of the PRC under international law.
A PRC delegation led by Minister of National Defense Dong Jun attended the Shangri-La Dialogue.

5. NSA Warns iPhone And Android Users To Turn It Off And On Again

A PSA for us all. The most important technique for dealing with our technology.

NSA Warns iPhone And Android Users To Turn It Off And On Again

Forbes · by Davey Winder · June 1, 2024

Davey Winder

Jun 1, 2024,07:45am EDT

Turn off your phone once every week, spooks say.

NurPhoto via Getty Images

Updated 06/01, this article was originally published on 05/30.

Although some people might worry about the National Security Agency itself spying on their phones, the NSA has some sage advice for iPhone and android users concerned about zero-click exploits and the like: turn it off and on again once per week.

How often do you turn off your iPhone or android device? Completely turn it off and then reboot it, rather than just going into standby mode, that is. I suspect that the answer for many people is only when a security or operating system update requires it. That, according to the NSA, could be a big mistake.

ForbesFBI Issues Advisory As Hackers Strike: Email Admins Do This 1 Thing Now By Davey Winder

NSA iPhone And Android Device Security And Privacy Best Practice Advice

In a document detailing several mobile device best practices, the NSA recommends users turn their devices off and then back on once every week to protect against zero-click exploits, which attackers often use to eavesdrop on and collect data from phones.

Users can mitigate the threat of spear-phishing, which can lead to the installation of yet more malware and spyware, by the same simple action. However, the NSA document does warn that the turn it off and on again advice will only sometimes prevent these attacks from being successful.

MORE FOR YOU

Godzilla Minus One Is Coming To Netflix This Weekend But There s A Catch

What To Watch This Weekend New Streaming Shows And Movies On Netflix Hulu Prime Video And More

WWE SmackDown Results Winners And Grades As AJ Styles Turns Heel Again

“Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity,” the NSA said while warning that some smartphone features “provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security.” As such, doing something is always better than doing nothing when it comes to being proactive about your device and data security.

The advice given is not some silver bullet that will solve all your security ills, it must be noted. Indeed, the NSA document includes a chart that shows how effective each tactic is against different threats. While good general advice, turning it off and on again will not help you against many of the more advanced malware and spyware threats that are programmed to reload on reboot.

Balancing Smartphone Convenience And Security

The NSA also advises Phone users to disable Bluetooth when not using it, update the device as soon as possible when operating system and application updates become available and disable location services when not needed. The small matter of security over convenience comes into play for much of the advice given, as you can tell already. Throw in not using public Wi-Fi networks and not using public charging stations, despite plenty of security experts considering the risk to be low in most real-world use cases, and many smartphone users are likely to roll the dice.

When it comes to public Wi-Fi there’s a difference between the risks that can be present and an individual actually being at risk. While it is possible for a determined criminal to use unsecured networks for nefarious purposes, this usually involves tricking an unsuspecting user into connecting to their Wi-Fi hotspot rather than one being provided by the railway company, airport, or coffee shop. A recently disclosed vulnerability that can lead to something called an SSID Confusion Attack is a good example of how this can work. Without going into the technical details, read the article for that; it can disable your VPN in certain circumstances and make it appear that you have connected to a secure network when you haven’t. But, again, most unsecured public WiFi networks are safe to use for general activity. The U.K. National Cyber Security Centre suggests that users instead connect by way of their mobile 4G or 5G network as these “will have built-in security and you can also use the tethering feature of most such devices to connect your laptop to your smartphone’s network. This makes sense when performing sensitive activities such as online banking, for example. There’s an excellent thread on Reddit that delves into the facts for further information.

All that said, I heartily agree with the on and off again advice as this only takes a minute or two of your week and is a good habit to get into. In fact, I’d say get into the habit of doing so every day, maybe as part of your bedtime routine.

ForbesSecurity Experts Issue Jenny Green Email Warning For Millions By Davey Winder

The NSA also says that ‘strong’ lock-screen PINs and passwords should be used, advising a minimum of a six-digit PIN as long as your smartphone is set up to wipe itself after 10 incorrect attempts and to lock automatically after 5 minutes of no input. More broadly, Oliver Page, the CEO of cybersecurity company Cybernut, says that users should “generate strong, unique passwords for each account using a password manager” and avoid using common phrases, dictionary words and password reuse across multiple accounts.

The NSA further warns that opening email attachments and links is a no-no, even when the sender appears legitimate, as they can easily pass on malicious content without realizing it or because their accounts are compromised. “Learn to recognize phishing attempts by checking email sender addresses, verifying website URLs, and scrutinizing email content for signs of manipulation,” Page says.

When it comes to sensitive conversations or messaging, the NSA warns against these on personal devices, even if you think the content is generic. This is a little restrictive, to say the least, given that many of us use our smartphones for that. However, falling for social engineering tactics such as responding to unsolicited emails or messages is a completely different kettle of phish. “Falling for social engineering tactics, like responding to unsolicited emails requesting sensitive information, can result in account compromise and identity theft. These phishing attempts often mimic legitimate entities, deceiving individuals into divulging confidential details,” Page says, adding, “Trusting phone calls or messages without verification can lead to serious consequences, as scammers manipulate victims into disclosing sensitive information or taking actions that compromise their security.”

Federal Communications Commission Offers Sage Smartphone Security Advice

The Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency of the U.S. government, also offers some pertinent security advice for smartphone users. There is a lot of overlap in the advice offered by differing government and law enforcement agencies, some of the FCC advice is worth mentioning here. Not modifying the security settings of your smartphone, for example. “Tampering with your phone’s factory settings, jailbreaking, or rooting your phone undermines the built-in security features offered by your wireless service and smartphone,” the FCC advises, “while making it more susceptible to an attack.” The mantra of not disabling security settings for the sake of convenience is one I agree with, but I acknowledge this is likely to go ignored by the general user, for whom convenience is everything until a security incident impacts them personally.

The FCC also warns that understanding app permissions is important as these can be used to bypass certain security functionality by a malicious app developer. Luckily, modern mobile operating systems have made such permission granting more transparent than ever, but it still pays to be alert to the danger. “You should be cautious about granting applications access to personal information on your phone or otherwise letting the application have access to perform functions on your phone,” the FCC said.

Another option that has become even easier with the evolution of these operating systems is the ability to remotely erase data from a stolen or lost smartphone. Just ensure you get this set up so it can work to your advantage if the worst happens. “In the case that you misplace your phone,” the FCC guidance says, “some applications can activate a loud alarm, even if your phone is on silent. These apps can also help you locate and recover your phone when lost.”

And finally, always wipe data from your device and reset it to factory settings before selling or otherwise disposing of your phone.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

Davey Winder

Following

Forbes · by Davey Winder · June 1, 2024

6. Navy’s former second-highest-ranking officer arrested, charged with bribery

What was this guy thinking? Don't we all eventually get caught when we do these illegal things? Or perhaps not and everyone who does it thinks they will not be caught?

Isn't a retired four star's retirement life comfortable enough? Why did he feel he needed more?

Navy’s former second-highest-ranking officer arrested, charged with bribery

Retired four-star Adm. Robert P. Burke, former vice chief of naval operations, is accused of awarding a single-source contract in exchange for a future $500,000-a-year job.

By Spencer S. Hsu

Updated May 31, 2024 at 8:17 p.m. EDT|Published May 31, 2024 at 6:12 p.m. EDT

The Washington Post · by Spencer S. Hsu · May 31, 2024

The Navy’s former second-highest-ranking officer and commander of naval forces for Europe and Africa was arrested Friday on federal bribery charges for allegedly awarding a sole-source contract to a company in 2021 in exchange for a $500,000-a-year job and stock options, the Justice Department announced.

Retired four-star Adm. Robert P. Burke, 62, of Coconut Creek, Fla., faces the prospect of becoming only the second U.S. admiral to be found guilty of committing a federal crime while on active duty, after he was arrested on a five-count indictment returned Thursday in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Burke was arrested with Yongchul “Charlie” Kim, 50, and Meghan Messenger, 47, founders of the New York-based technology services firm Next Jump, prosecutors announced.

All three face counts of conspiracy to commit bribery and bribery, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Burke faces additional counts of performing acts affecting a personal financial interest and concealing material facts, punishable by up to 30 years.

In an interview, Burke’s attorney Tim Parlatore said: “He denies these charges. We do intend to go to trial, and we expect at trial he’ll be found not guilty,” adding that there was “no connection whatsoever between this contract and this job.”

Though the indictment does not name the business, its description matches that of Next Jump, a New York City company whose website identifies Kim and Messenger as among its founders roughly 30 years ago and as its current co-CEOs. The company lists the U.S. Navy as a customer, and it announced on social media that Burke had joined Next Jump in October 2022, aligning with the timing of the allegations in the indictment.

Kim and Messenger could not be immediately be reached for comment, and court records in Manhattan did not immediately identify attorneys for them. Next Jump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, federal law enforcement and military officials said the charges exemplified a commitment to “eradicating fraud” in the Defense Department.

“As alleged in the indictment, Admiral Burke used his public office and his four-star status for his private gain,” said U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves. “The law does not make exceptions for admirals or CEOs. … The urgency is at its greatest when, as here, senior government officials and senior executives are allegedly involved in the corruption.”

Before retiring in 2022, Burke oversaw naval operations in Europe, Russia and most of Africa. A native of Portage, Mich., Burke served from June 2019 until June 2020 as the 40th vice chief of naval operations, the service’s No. 2-ranking officer. He succeeded retired Adm. William Moran, who was set to take over as the Navy’s top officer in August 2019 before unexpectedly retiring, citing his interactions with a subordinate accused of acting inappropriately toward female officers.

Burke’s Navy biography says he is a trained electrical engineer and submariner who served in numerous postings around the world. He was chief of naval personnel, with responsibility for manpower, personnel, training and education, when the events described in the indictment began.

According to the government, Kim and Messenger were co-CEOs of a business named in the indictment only as “Company A,” which provided a workforce training pilot program to a small Navy component from August 2018 through July 2019. Burke supported the program as naval personnel chief, but later that year, the Navy terminated a contract with the company, and in November an aide to Burke directed it not to contact him further because of his new role as vice chief of naval operations and “upcoming contracting actions,” according to the 16-page indictment.

But Kim and Messenger allegedly met with Burke in Washington in July 2021 to revive the company’s Navy business, and agreed that Burke would use his four-star admiral position to steer a sole-source contract to Company A in exchange for a future job. Federal investigators said Burke also allegedly agreed to influence other officers to award another contract to Company A to train a large portion of the Navy, a contract that Kim valued in the “triple digit millions.”

Burke allegedly ordered his staff to award a $355,000 contract to the company in December 2021 to train personnel under his command in Italy and Spain, according to government investigators. He also promoted the company in a failed effort to persuade another senior admiral to award it another contract. Burke also allegedly made false statements to the Navy to create the appearance that he played no role in issuing the contract and to imply that his employment talks began months after the contract was awarded, federal authorities said.

Burke began working at Company A in October 2022 at a yearly starting salary of $500,000 and a grant of 100,000 stock options, the government alleged. That same month, Next Jump announced on Twitter that Burke had become a senior partner at the company. He left the company in early 2023, Parlatore said.

Burke’s attorney rejected the government’s timeline, saying it “frontloads the job offer” to the July 2021 meeting to fit the timeline of a quid pro quo. “The reality is, there was no job accepted at that stage. That happened much, much later,” Parlatore said. He added, “Does it really make sense to offer a $500,000 job to get a $350,000 contract?”

Only one U.S. Navy admiral has ever been found guilty of committing a federal crime while on active duty; Rear Adm. Robert Gilbeau was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 2017 for lying to federal agents about his part in the worst corruption scandal in Navy history, involving disgraced defense contractor Leonard “Fat Leonard” Francis.

The Justice Department’s handling of the Francis investigation has gotten a black eye, however, after defense attorneys alleged that prosecutors relied on flawed evidence and withheld information favorable to the defense. U.S. prosecutors two weeks ago moved to drop felony charges against five convicted defendants and said as many as two dozen more cases could be affected by an ongoing review of 34 prosecutions, including 29 guilty pleas.

Parlatore said there was no factual connection between Burke’s case and the Leonard investigation, but he raised an eyebrow at the back-to-back moves involving high-profile Navy scandals, saying, “The timing is odd, to indict a high-ranking admiral after the complete implosion of all the Fat Leonard-related connections due to DOJ’s misconduct.”

The Washington Post · by Spencer S. Hsu · May 31, 2024

7. Hamas, Communism, and the End of America

The author (Naya Lekht, a young teacher, author, and speaker) asks why:

Excerpts:

In the spirit of Orwell’s Winston Smith, who says, “I understand HOW: I do not understand WHY,” let us then explore how and why this tiny conflict has so successfully united young people against their own country.

My answer springs from examining the strange bedfellows of antisemitism, Marxism, and Islamism. Why do these three fit so comfortably together?

Conclusion:

Hope lies with education – with the pedagogy of the free and the brave.

THE STORY

Hamas, Communism, and the End of America

https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/hamas-communism-and-the-end-of-america

How lethal ideologies may end our way of life

MAY 31, 2024

(This weekend I’ve selected a guest essay from Naya Lekht, a young teacher, author, and speaker. The piece speaks for itself. I do not necessarily agree with every single claim here, but I admire the courage and insight. --Ayaan)

Give a college student a slogan to chant or a poster to carry and witness the incredible force of student activism erupt. Students have always cared about changing the world. Fixing the climate and racial justice have lately been the causes célèbres; were they not those, they would be something else equally urgent-sounding. Add to this a map of the world wrapped around the framework of oppression and a blinkered fixation on decolonization, and we see clearly how the Hamas-Israel conflict – one spanning a tiny area the size of Raleigh, North Carolina – managed to capture the minds of America’s youth.

Restoration, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The slogan “all eyes on Rafah,” hatched earlier this week as the IDF entered the city, raises the question: Where were these eyes when 619,910 were killed in Syria; 150,000 killed in Yemen; 6 million killed in Congo since 1996; and nearly 20,000 Ukrainian civilians killed as of February 2023? And for those who want to end “systemic racism,” how many of those have their eyes glued to the African continent, where an estimated 7 million black people are enslaved today?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, campuses did not explode with “safe spaces for Ukrainians,” “Russians out” signage, and demands that universities divest from Russia. Statues remained untouched: no activist draped the vyshyvanka, a traditional Ukrainian garb, on a statue of a great American leader, nor unfurled the Ukrainian flag in place of an American flag. The reason is that the Hamas-Israel war, unlike the Russo-Ukrainian war, is a perfect proxy war in the larger struggle against the West itself. Indeed, unlike the Russo-Ukrainian war, which does not provide a veil for anti-Westernism, “We are Hamas,” “Intifada Revolution,” and “Long live Hamas!” have become shorthand for “down with America!”

Keffiyeh draped on Benjamin Franklin, Washington D.C., Nov. 2023

The hijacking – nay, the occupation – of campuses by Hamas sympathizers has less to do with a conflict 5,000 miles away and more to do with dethroning America. “Can we get a ‘Marg bar America?’” a keffiyeh-clad activist asked Shabbir Rivzi, a Chicago-based activist frequently appearing on Iran’s state-run TV. He was not talking about margaritas. Rivzi had just led the group in an induction ceremony, teaching a roomful of activists to chant “Marg bar Israel,” Farsi for “death to Israel” – before pivoting to “death to America” at the request of the keffiyah-clad man. The “great Satan” and the “little Satan” must, in their view, fall together.

Five years ago, chanting “death to America” and burning the American flag belonged on Iranian soil. We, in the United States, though we remembered Vietnam, had not seen such fury here for a while. Even so, those of us who oppose such actions do so wearily, knowing full-well how deeply and lastingly our enemies will always hate us.

In the spirit of Orwell’s Winston Smith, who says, “I understand HOW: I do not understand WHY,” let us then explore how and why this tiny conflict has so successfully united young people against their own country.

My answer springs from examining the strange bedfellows of antisemitism, Marxism, and Islamism. Why do these three fit so comfortably together?

Antisemitism: A Lethal Ideology

At its core, antisemitism is an ideology that views Jews as whatever is vile in the world. To save the world, “the Jew” must be exterminated. It is for this reason that Hannah Arendt wrote that, unlike many other forms of hatred, “antisemitism is genocidal.” It must be. Why? Because if you knew that there were people who conspire with the devil, engage in blood rituals with gentile children, underlie war, pollute the world, control the world, oppress the world, and enact genocide on other people – then there is no other option than to cleanse the world of them. This is why it feels so very righteous to fight the Jew, for in ridding the world of Jews, you are the superhero, the one who saves the world.

Deemed the oldest hatred, antisemitism can be traced through three distinct evolutionary eras: anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Zionism. Though each views the Jew distinctly, what unites these three eras is a vision in which the Jew is the violator of that which the civilization believes to be moral. In the era of anti-Judaism, Jews were seen as violating the tenets of Christianity. Not only were they guilty of killing Christ, but their continued existence threatened the success of Christianity. In the era of anti-Semitism, Jews were seen as cunning subverters, secretly controlling the world’s economy and enacting revolutions and wars. This culminated in the Nazi view that Jews violated the purity of their host peoples. In our era of anti-Zionism, the Jew (vis-à-vis Israel) violates that which we care most deeply about: namely, human rights.

Tell me what the worst thing to be is, and I will tell you what a “Jew” is. That’s how antisemitism works: with the rise of Christianity in Europe, to deny Christ was frequently a sin. The Jew symbolized that denial. For the Nazis, Bolshevism was the primary danger. The Jew was cast as Bolshevik. For the Soviets, capitalism was the greatest evil. The Jew was thus cast as the capitalist. Today, the worst thing to be is a colonizer. Today, the Jew reprises his role as a villain as Zionism and Israel are “synonymous” with the colonizer.

Antisemitism, therefore, is not a simple “othering” of people, but a deeply pathological phenomenon where the infected seek to rid the world of the Jew, only to summon him back over and over. It is perhaps for this reason that Jean-Paul Sartre writes that “if the Jew did not exist, the antisemite would have to invent him.”

For this reason, antisemitism plays a critical role in globalized ideologies. It is the first stop along the way of “Globalizing the Intifada,” the road to destroying Western civilization.

The Red-Green Alliance: A Global Future

Much has been written on the bizarre alliance between Marxists and Islamists. And it is bizarre! Marxists and Islamists have many differences. But in the broader context of globalization, the Marxists and Islamists emerge as bedfellows, intent on spreading anti-Western, “anti-imperialist” ideologies. On the surface, this alliance may sound like a passing association of convenience. Perhaps it is. But, one would be foolish not to wonder whether the anti-Western narrative propelled by the Red-Green Alliance is founded on a shared replacement theology. It’s in the fine print. And since no vacuum remains “space-free,” the strategy of the Red-Green Alliance belongs to a broader category of warfare that seeks to dominate and govern.

As outlined by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the threat of the Red-Green Alliance is “part of a comprehensive plan” sixty-five years in the making, in which Arab states in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s received, among other kinds, ideological support from the Soviet Union. We in the West became acutely aware of this union after 9/11. It slapped us in the face. As Michael Kelley wrote in “Marching with Stalinists,” 9/11 became that moment when Americans came face-to-face with a segment of the left that wanted the demise of the United States no less than Islamist terrorist groups.

Because the grand plan is to conquer the west, the final battle will be between the Reds and the Greens. Once the common enemy is destroyed, it’s time to fight over the spoils. That’s always how it goes. Take, for example, the Nazi-Soviet Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which collapsed once they had conquered Poland. Similarly, the Red-Green Alliance will fold.

Who would win? It’s a difficult question, but it’s easier to see which segments of the coalition would first lose. If 20^thcentury history has taught us anything, it is that revolutions eat their children. Who were the first victims of communism in the Soviet Union? The infamous purges of the 1930’s targeted those who led the revolution. I don’t imagine the sickly cohorts calling themselves Communists today will fare better than their more robust Trotskyite forbears. The willing trumpeters who rally around slogans such as “Queers for Palestine” or “By Any Means Necessary” will soon find themselves the victims of, well, necessary means.

It would be no surprise, then, if the “Red” half of the alliance were the “useful idiot” half. For the Reds, who want to overthrow capitalism despite abundant evidence that alternatives never work, the Islamists are a welcome ally. For the Islamists, the goal is not to overthrow capitalism but to conquer Western democracies. Of course, such a future would not have a place for a sovereign Proletariat any more than actual Communist countries ever do.

One does wonder why the Reds are so naïve. Wasn’t the Iranian Revolution of 1979 a textbook case of revolution turning against, e.g. minorities and women – not to mention freedom of the press and assembly? And yes, of course leftist ideologues and theoreticians played a critical role in deposing the Shah. Foucault himself praised it, stating that Iran is the perfect location for a “first great insurrection against global systems.” In sum, Foucault’s infantile worldview contributed to one of history’s great heists: that by an Islamic ideology, once heralded by progressives, that now tortures and jails them.

Why hasn’t the Red left woken up to any of this? Do they not realize they have no children, and that Islamists have many? Do they not see what happens to people like them in Muslim countries?

Some do, and some do not. But most are blinded by a common hatred. The WHY of this deadly alliance brings us back to the role that antisemitism plays in uniting Marxists and Islamists. Marxists and the Islamists unite around a shared fear of the Jew. This is why Marxists smash statues and vandalize libraries to advance the Palestinian cause: because the Jew is white and privileged – the worst things to be. The Jew is a synecdoche for all that is evil. For the Islamist, conversely, the Jew represents the dhimmi who dares to govern as sovereign in what they deem to be “indisputable” Muslim lands.

And the Islamists are not fools. They know how to stoke their common hatred. The strand of antisemitism shipped to the West is clad in anti-colonial costume. To their sophomoric allies on college campuses, Islamists brand Jews as colonists and racists; when alone, an entirely different strand of antisemitism takes form: Jews are apes and pigs, unworthy of living as equals in the Middle East.

It's a ruse. Its victims, of course, will be the willing participants who chant “Free Palestine” and “Globalize the Intifada.” But the victims will also be those who minimized campus antisemitism, those who looked away as American flags burned on American streets, and an entire generation of freedom-loving Westerners who know little of the grandiose replacement plans set in motion by radical Islamists.

Hope Lies in Intellectual Courage

Those freedom-loving Westerners yet to understand the dangers of antisemitism, Marxism, and Islamism must awaken, or we are doomed. Like a sharpshooter, we have one eye fixed on the threat of right-wing fascism. That is well and good. But we keep one eye on this danger so obsessively that the other eye is kept tightly shut. Time to open up. It is time for schools to really educate on the terror of all tyrannical ideologies. This means having the courage to inveigh against the zeitgeist: to preach truth at the cost of upsetting progressive sensibilities and all the terrible consequences that entails. The consequences of not doing so are, I’m afraid, even worse.

Yes, keep an eye on Rafah. But don’t forget everywhere else. All eyes on Sudan! All eyes on October 7! All eyes on Syria! All eyes on the rampant slavery on the African continent. All eyes on D.E.I. initiatives. All eyes on China! All eyes on Iran! All eyes on Qatar! All eyes on Marxist demagoguery! And yes, all eyes on radical Islam!

We must, therefore, throw ourselves into educating our youth, our leaders, and our journalists about the dangers of antisemitism, for antisemitism is not just a Jewish problem. Recall Sartre: it has more to do with the antisemite than the Jew. Moreover, its primary victim is not always the Jew, but frequently the host civilization. This latest variant, anti-Zionism, has been quietly traveling within our most important institutions, schools, universities, and media, infecting hearts and minds along the way.

We must do as good, if not better, a job of educating about the tyranny of Marxism as we have of educating about fascism. Our schools must dedicate time to studying the bloody history of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam: communist countries that, together, took the lives of roughly 100 million people! We must take students to museums dedicated to education on communism. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation opened the first-ever museum in Washington, D.C., in 2021. We need more. At such places, students can interact with primary sources and visit the permanent exhibits that detail the rise of an ideology that hollowed out a century of humanity.

Finally, we must educate ourselves and others on the dangers of radical Islam. People must read Bernard Lewis, the influential scholar on Islam. We must trace the rise of political Islam; ask the difficult questions, the ones few dare to raise. And we must find voices of courage, those who defected from the tyranny of radical Islam. They exist.

Hope lies with education – with the pedagogy of the free and the brave.

8. Russia opens a new front: Mapping three key battles in the Ukrainian war

Map/graphics at the link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/31/europe/ukraine-war-map-kharkiv-avdiivka-robotyne-intl

Russia opens a new front: Mapping three key battles in the Ukrainian war | CNN

CNN · by Lou Robinson, Sophie Tanno · May 31, 2024

CNN —

Russia has opened up a new front in its invasion of Ukraine, launching a surprise offensive in the northeastern region of Kharkiv after focusing much of their forces this year on the east.

The assault, which began earlier this month, saw thousands of Russian soldiers punch through the northern border, and forced Ukraine to move in troops from other areas to defend positions.

It serves as an example of how Russia has been exploiting Ukraine’s main vulnerabilities: insufficient manpower, artillery shortages, sparse air defenses and inadequate defensive fortifications.

Ukraine’s frontline brigades are clinging on as they desperately await munitions from allies and fresh recruits to provide some much-needed manpower.

CNN has laid out the three key frontiers where fighting is now raging, tracking the marginal gains Russia has made along a frontline which had previously been frozen for months.

In the north, Moscow’s troops are aiming to bring its troops within tube artillery range of Kharkiv city. Along the southern front, the battle is on to recapture villages liberated during Ukraine’s counteroffensive last year and push further into Ukrainian territory.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is racing to fix its current weak spots after finding itself on the back foot as it pledges to fight “house by house, street by street.”

The Kharkiv front

The cross-border assault saw the Russians quickly take control of several villages.

Since then, Russia has ramped up its attacks in the area as it tries to take control of the key settlements of Vovchansk and Lypsti.

Lyptsi, which lies around 30 kilometers north of Kharkiv, is under heavy Russian bombardment. Capturing the large village would allow Russian troops to position artillery within range of Kharkiv city, Ukraine’s second largest, which is already vulnerable to missile attacks, as this weekend’s strike on a hardware store showed.

The attack also allows Russia to divert already thinly stretched Ukrainian resources away from other front lines, and to create a buffer zone from Ukrainian attacks on Russian border regions. The nearby Russian city of Belgorod, for instance, has increasingly come under Ukrainian attack in recent months.

The east - Avdiivka and Bakhmut

Before the Kharkiv offensive, Russia had been largely focusing its offensive capabilities in the east, where it had been inching forward since October 2023 as Ukraine’s highly-anticipated counteroffensive floundered last summer. Capturing Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland – known as the Donbas - remains a major Kremlin goal.

In February, Moscow’s troops notched up a major success along this front when they took the town of Avdiivka. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that the decision to pull back was made to “save our soldiers’ lives” and came in the face of constant, heavy Russian bombardment and a ten-to-one shell disadvantage.

Since then, Russian troops have made steady progress westwards in the direction of Pokrovsk, which serves as a vital military hub in Ukraine’s war effort.

A few dozen kilometers to the north, eastern city of Bakhmut was recaptured by the Russians in spring last year following a grinding, nine-month battle. Now, Russia’s forces are edging west towards Chasiv Yar. Getting control of high ground on which the town sits would put Putin’s troops closer to the strategic city of Kramatorsk.

The battle for Robotyne

Further to the south, Ukrainian forces are coming under pressure southeast of Zaporizhzhia, one of the few areas where they achieved success, albeit modest in size, in last summer’s counteroffensive.

Both Russian military bloggers and Ukraine’s DeepStateMap report small Russian advances into a pocket of recaptured Ukrainian territory.

Robotyne, a tiny village that is now completely destroyed, has changed hands several times during the war. It was first captured by Russian forces in early March 2022 and Moscow again claimed control over it earlier this month, something denied by Ukraine.

The battle for Robotyne highlights the fluidity of the battlefield and is a stark illustration of the nature of the fighting, with the war being decided in brutal battles for often abandoned villages.

Sources: The Institute for the Study of War with AEI’s Critical Threats Project (map data from May 29, 2024 at 3 p.m. ET), OpenStreetMap.

Notes: “Assessed” means the Institute for the Study of War has received reliable and independently verifiable information to demonstrate Russian control or advances in those areas. Russian advances are areas where Russian forces have operated in or launched attacks, but they do not control them. “Claimed” areas are where sources have said control or counteroffensives are occurring, but ISW cannot corroborate nor demonstrate them to be false.

CNN · by Lou Robinson, Sophie Tanno · May 31, 2024

9. It’s starting to look like the 1930s for all the wrong reasons

Excerpts:

This pattern of zero-sum strategic competition so far seems to preclude efforts to find a stable balance. It also constrains cooperation on existential common problems such as pandemics and climate change.

The hope is that shining light on these historical parallels may lead the contending major powers to pause and reflect on where the current trajectory is headed before a catastrophic event.

It’s starting to look like the 1930s for all the wrong reasons

BY ROBERT A. MANNING, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 05/31/24 12:00 PM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4693949-its-starting-to-look-like-the-1930s-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/

Surging tariff wars, a tripling of trade barriers since 2019.

A major power conflict in the heart of Europe aided vicariously by the U.S. and NATO.

Nascent coalitions — the U.S. and fellow democracies on one side, a Eurasian entente (China-Russia-Iran-North Korea) on the other. Both loose alignments incrementally harden into economic and security blocs.

It’s not the 1930s, but it’s starting to rhyme.

While not a perfect analogy to Ukraine, the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) was a prelude to World War II, with blocs taking sides. Fascist Germany and Italy backed the nationalist military revolt, while the Soviet Union backed the Republican government along with U.S. volunteers like Ernest Hemingway and the Abraham Lincoln Batallion.

And while deglobalization is not yet of the magnitude of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff act, the Biden administration’s recent wave of tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and other goods is the latest sign that economic nationalism and protectionism around the world is surging. Trade restrictions have been growing exponentially since 2015.

That may sound like a harsh assessment of current trends, but it is difficult to conclude otherwise. Things could be worse this time, with climate change and a raft of fragile and failing states compounding the burgeoning disorder.

The International Monetary Fund has been sounding alarm bells about the erosion of the rules-based order. In a recent speech, IMF Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath voiced fears about geopolitics shaping economic decisions.

“Countries are reevaluating their trading partners based on economic and national security concerns,” she said, noting “increasing signs of fragmentation.”

“Trade and investment flows are being redirected along geopolitical lines,” she concluded.

We’re experiencing what a McKinsey report described as a “new geometry of trade.” Russia’s trade has been rewired away from Europe by Western sanctions. And while China is still a leading trading partner with the U.S., tech wars, tariffs, mutual “derisking” and China’s cultivating of developing nations have shifted trade patterns.

China now trades more with the Global South than with the U.S., EU and Japan combined. More nations are seeking to use currencies other than the dollar for trade

Gopinath said these new trade and financial patterns have not yet reached worrisome proportions. But if they persist, we could see “a world divided into three blocs: a U.S. leaning bloc, a China leaning bloc and a bloc of nonaligned countries.”

One consequence, the IMF warns, could be a loss of 7 percent of global GDP growth over time.

Such a revamping of global economic connectivity would almost certainly reinforce the intensity of great power competition, with Russia and China looking to carve out their respective spheres of interest, and the U.S. trying to maintain its eroding global primacy.

Such goals are a prism through which to view current tensions. Some fear if Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine that Moldova or even the Baltic nations might be his next target.

In any case, the risks of escalation in Ukraine — Putin’s threats to use tactical nuclear weapons — could be a trigger. What happens if NATO members France and Lithuania, which are considering sending troops to Ukraine, actually do so — and they are killed by a Russian missile?

Turbulence in Asia has its share of potential triggers for major power conflict. China’s determination to absorb Taiwan into just another Chinese province and its deep distrust of Taiwan’s new independence-leaning president, Lai Ching Te, has already led to Beijing staging major military exercises near Taiwan’s shores — in effect a dress rehearsal for a blockade. A post-inauguration visit to Taiwan this week by a U.S. House delegation is likely to spark another Chinese temper tantrum.

Similarly, China is ratcheting up coercive maritime actions in the South China Sea, shooting water hoses at Philippines ships.

China claims reefs and shoals in the Philippines’ economic zone as its own. But China’s territorial claims to some 85 percent of the South China Sea were rejected by the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 2016. Beijing rejected the court’s ruling even though it ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty on which the ruling was based.

Manila is a U.S. treaty ally, and in response to China’s actions, the U.S., Japan, Australia and the Philippines last month staged a joint military drill in the South China Sea. It doesn’t take great imagination to see how an incident in these contested waters or around Taiwan could spark U.S.-China military confrontations.

Nothing is inevitable. But the point to viewing our current predicament, its economic and geopolitical trends in the context of the pre-World War II period is to illuminate possible futures. Perhaps also, this exercise might lead to reexamining some dominant assumptions.

Current economic and geopolitical policies and trends seem to disregard recent history, the fateful policy decisions and actions that resulted in World War II. Nor do lessons from the Cold War, with harrowing near catastrophes like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, seem to be weighing on the major powers.

For example, the entire edifice of nuclear and conventional arms control — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and the New START Treaty, which eliminated whole categories of weapons and 80 percent of nuclear weapons, is gone.

Both the U.S. and Russia withdrew from the INF accord, and Putin has suspended the New START agreement over the Ukraine war. China has so far refused U.S. calls for nuclear arms talks. Instead, the U.S., Russia and China are all modernizing and expanding their nuclear arsenals.

This pattern of zero-sum strategic competition so far seems to preclude efforts to find a stable balance. It also constrains cooperation on existential common problems such as pandemics and climate change.

The hope is that shining light on these historical parallels may lead the contending major powers to pause and reflect on where the current trajectory is headed before a catastrophic event.

Robert A. Manning is a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center and its Global Foresight and China programs. Follow him on X/Twitter @Rmanning4.

10. No breakthrough, no breakdown at Shangri-La

No breakthrough, no breakdown at Shangri-La - Asia Times

US-Chinese defense chiefs meet for first time in 18 months while Filipino leader keeps rhetorical heat on China at Singapore talk shop

asiatimes.com · by Richard Javad Heydarian · June 1, 2024

MANILA – Rising tensions between China and US allies in Asia set the tone for this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a defense talk shop that brought together defense officials and policy experts from across the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

In his highly anticipated keynote speech, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr pulled no punches by slamming Beijing’s aggressive actions in the South China Sea.

In a barely veiled criticism of the Asian superpower, the Filipino leader highlighted its “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive actions [which] continue to violate our sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction” in the hotly disputed waters.

More broadly, Marcos Jr warned of the “permanent fact” of China’s aim to achieve “determining influence over the security situation and the economic evolution of this region.”

Faced with criticism at home and overseas for his hard pivot back to Western allies after six years of his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte’s pro-China foreign policy, Marcos Jr underscored the “stabilizing presence of the United States [as] crucial to regional peace.”

Nevertheless, the Filipino leader made it clear that, similar to other Southeast Asian states, he is not fully aligning with one superpower against another since “[i]t’s never a choice” and “[b]oth countries are important” for regional peace and prosperity.

Recognizing the dire consequences of an untrammeled New Cold War, the two superpowers also initiated vital conversations on the sidelines of the mega-event.

During his meeting with China’s newly-installed defense minister, Dong Jun, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held what the US characterized as “firm but professional” conversations on a wide range of issues including disagreements over Beijing’s nuclear, space, and cyber development policies, actions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, and alleged “lethal aid” to Russia in the Ukraine conflict.

This marked the first meeting of its kind between US and Chinese defense chiefs in 18 months, raising hopes of restoring guardrails in their bilateral military relations. The two chiefs agreed to reopen hotlines in a move that will help keep tensions from spiraling into confrontation in Asia.

This year’s Shangri-La Dialogue couldn’t have been more timely. It came hot on the heels of China’s massive drills around Taiwan shortly after the self-ruling island nation inaugurated its new president, Lai Ching-te.

Although the new Taiwanese leader has emphasized his commitment to maintaining a stable status quo, Beijing has stepped up its intimidation tactics by expanding its missile deployment close to and expanding aerial patrols across from the Taiwan Strait in demonstrating its growing ability to conduct a complex, multidirectional invasion of the self-governing island China sees as a renegade province.

“If China stops its provocation and intimidation, then peace and stability can be maintained,” Taiwan’s Defense Minister Wellington Koo told reporters following China’s latest drills, painting the Asian superpower as the main cause of trouble in the region.

Meanwhile, China has also upped the ante in the South China Sea against the Philippines, a US mutual defense treaty ally. Chinese maritime forces have clashed with Filipino patrol and resupply vessels close to the Second Thomas Shoal and Scarborough Shoal on at least five occasions in recent months, leading to the injury of several Filipino servicemen and major damage to multiple Philippine vessels.

During his question and answer with media at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Marcos Jr made it clear that the death of a Filipino coast guard or naval servicemen would cross a “red line.” “If a Filipino citizen was killed by a willful act, that is very close to what we define as an act of war. We would have crossed the Rubicon. Is that a red line? Almost certainly.”

On multiple occasions, the Biden administration has signaled its “ironclad support” for the Philippines and, accordingly, said that the 1951 US-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty would apply in the event of an armed attack on Philippine public vessels and troops in the South China Sea, raising the prospect of great power conflict over the disputed land features.

A deep source of concern is the dearth of institutionalized dialogue between the two superpowers just as risks of armed confrontation have increased in recent months. Following then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, China suspended various communications channels with the US as a form of diplomatic retaliation.

Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden met on two occasions in November 2022 and also on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC) in San Francisco last year, where they agreed to re-establish guardrails in bilateral relations.

In particular, the Pentagon has pushed for setting up a communications channel between the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) chief in Hawaii and his Chinese counterpart overseeing operations in the Western Pacific including over Taiwan, Japan and the South China Sea.

Last month, the US and Chinese defense chiefs held talks over the phone to set the tone for their in-person meeting in Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue.

“The [US Secretary] expressed concern about recent provocative [People’s Liberation Army] activity around the Taiwan Strait and he reiterated that [China] should not use Taiwan’s political transition – part of a normal, routine democratic process – as a pretext for coercive measures,” US Air Force Major General Patrick Ryder Ryder said in a statement following the 75-minute meeting between Austin and Dong.

After meeting Austin in Singapore, Dong said the “stabilization” of military-to-military relations “does not come by easily and shall be cherished dearly,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Wu Qian, told reporters after the meeting, adding that Dong stressed that neither side should “contain or smear” the other side, but rather build mutual trust.

Dong also said that when it comes to areas surrounding China, especially the South China Sea, commercial ships and aircraft “can always operate safely,” but that “there is a huge difference between freedom and willfulness, between navigation and trespassing.”

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

“It is important to respect others’ security concerns, and security should be mutually respected. No one can pursue one’s security at the expense of another country’s security,” Dong said, according to the ministry spokesperson.

For the Philippines, Marcos Jr’s keynote speech, the first-ever by a Filipino leader, marked a major diplomatic victory. It provided Manila a major platform to rally international support as well as increase pressure on Southeast Asian neighbors to address rising tensions in the South China Sea.

Singapore served as a perfect venue for Marcos Jr to highlight ASEAN’s shortcomings in exercising agency and leadership in shaping regional affairs as well as underscore his country’s defensive approach to ongoing disputes.

He underscored the inviolability of the Philippines’ sovereign rights and “strategic agency” while highlighting China’s aggressive actions, including its recently passed law against “trespassing” in Beijing-claimed waters across the South China Sea basin.

“We have defined our territory and maritime zones in a manner befitting a responsible and law-abiding member of the international community,” the Filipino leader emphasized, pushing back against China’s narrative that the Philippines is the source of trouble.

“As President, I have sworn to this solemn commitment from the very first day that I took office [to defend our sovereign rights]. I do not intend to yield. Filipinos do not yield,” he added, warning China that its current course of action spells a lose-lose situation for the whole region.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on X at @Richeydarian

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

asiatimes.com · by Richard Javad Heydarian · June 1, 2024

11. Inside a huge U.S. military exercise in Africa to counter terrorism and Russia and China's growing influence

I think I recall Flintlock back in the 1980s being primarily a Special Forces unconventional warfare exercise in Europe.

Photos and map at the link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-africa-flintlock-drills-counter-terrorism-and-russia-china-influence/

Inside a huge U.S. military exercise in Africa to counter terrorism and Russia and China's growing influence

CBS News · by Debora Patta

Tamale, Ghana — On a dusty airport tarmac in the northern Ghanaian city of Tamale, military special operatives from across Africa move stealthily. Shots ring out as they converge on the airport and apprehend armed militants holding it hostage.

It's not a real attack, but just one of the exercises of "Flintlock," the U.S. military's premier counterterrorism training event in Africa, which is now in its 20th year.

Special ops teams from the U.S. military's Africa Command, along with NATO allies, are conducting drills alongside soldiers from countries including Ghana, Ivory Coast, Chad, Mauritania, Nigeria, Libya and Morocco.

In the exercise CBS News witnessed, the elite forces were rescuing hostages from a simulated attack on an airport. It's a very real scenario in the vast North African region known as the Sahel, which is considered the epicenter of the global fight against ISIS and al Qaeda franchises.

A map shows the Sahel region stretching across the northern African continent. Getty/iStockphoto

The Sahel stretches from Mauritania in the west through Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, all the way to Eritrea and Djibouti on Africa's east coast, and it is home to the fastest growing and most deadly terror groups in the world.

Ghana is one of the few countries in the region that has managed to dodge the rapid rise of violent extremism — blocking any potential incursions before they reach its borders.

Gen. Frank Tei of the Ghana Armed Forces told CBS News that was vital, because "once you allow terrorist activities in a particular country to fester and blossom, then that place can become a base from which a lot of other terrorist activities can spread across the globe."

That's exactly what the U.S. fears and is trying to help prevent.

The deputy AFRICOM commander, Lt. Gen. John Brennan, told CBS News that the Flintlock exercise is not only about training African forces to defend themselves and combat terrorism, however.

"We offer things that are meaningful in the long term — sharing democratic values, instilling rule of law," he said.

But that hasn't worked out so well over the past decade. There have been 11 coups in the Sahel alone over that period, and at least 14 leaders of those armed government overthrows were trained at Flintlock.

Brennan told CBS News the military tracks these leaders, and while there are strict rules of engagement with any country in which the government has been toppled by a military junta, "the hope is that you keep contact with the military partners and then you pull them away from military-led governments, which never last."

So how can the U.S. ensure the skills taught at events like Flintlock are not later weaponized and used to subvert democracy?

Brennan is quick to point out that executing a coup is a political maneuver, not a military one.

"We teach them how to protect their forces in combat and then conduct successful counterterrorism operations. That has nothing to do with overthrowing a government. It's just some of the people we've trained are military and they're involved in some of the coups," he said. "But history has shown … democracy ends up prevailing in a lot of countries."

Flintlock has expanded to include maritime training — including rappelling onto a moving warship hijacked by armed militants. American forces, along with Italian and Dutch soldiers, put African troops through their paces on a frigate off the Ghanaian coast.

Soldiers rappel onto the deck of a moving warship during the annual U.S.-led Flintlock training exercises for African forces, hosted this year by Ghana, in late May 2024. CBS News

This aspect of the exercises is increasingly important, given that the Sahel region runs all the way to the Red Sea, where the Iran-backed Houthi rebels have been launching attacks targeting international shipping and U.S. naval vessels.

The annual Flintlock training operation — hosted this year by Ghana — could not have come at a more crucial time for the U.S. military, as American influence is arguably in deep decline across the vast African continent.

The U.S. is up against stiff competition. China offers Africa's national leaders trade agreements and Russia offers military aid, and all with very few strings attached. Washington, meanwhile, has been booted off one key front line in the fight against terrorism, after the more than 1,000 troops AFRICOM had stationed in Niger were ordered to leave the country by September following a coup there last year.

People, some carrying Russian flags, demonstrate in Niger's capital Niamey to show their support for the military rulers who seized power in a coup, on Aug. 3, 2023. Djibo Issifou/picture alliance via Getty Images

The U.S. has two military bases in Niger, including a drone command center in the city of Agadez that cost more than $110 million to set up.

Russia quickly stepped in to exploit the power vacuum created by the coup. Mercenaries from the former Wagner Group, now called Africa Corps and run by the Russian government, arrived in Niger in April.

In a scenario that was not long ago unimaginable, the Russian and American forces now occupy opposite sides of the same sprawling air base.

That has sent alarm bells ringing in Washington, and U.S. Ambassador to Ghana Virginia Palmer stressed to CBS News that African nations should understand that Russia's offer of security forces does not come completely without strings attached.

"It's important that our African partners understand that what the Russians are offering is, maybe regime protection — it's certainly not national security," Palmer said.

She said African countries do pay for the services offered by Moscow, and at a cost that "is extraordinarily high."

How Russia's Wagner group exploits Africa to fund the Ukraine war 05:24

Niger is rich in uranium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons. What Russia provides is military muscle in exchange for mineral wealth, but unlike the U.S., the deal comes with no potentially tricky human rights questions being asked.

"But time will tell that that decision is probably not a good one," Brennan said. "So, you don't feed your kids ice cream for dinner every night because they want it, right? You feed them vegetables, you feed them spinach, things that are good for them … instant gratification is probably not a recipe for success."

U.S. law restricts the provision of military aid to armed forces believed to be guilty of human rights abuses, but many leaders on the continent accuse Washington of having double standards — saying the U.S. withholds aid from some African nations while giving Israel billions of dollars despite global condemnation of its actions in the war in Gaza.

White House says deadly Rafah attack didn't cross Biden's "red line" for Israel 04:47

It's a charge that Brennan disputes.

"I don't think there's a double standard," he told CBS News. "I can tell you our values and the people we do partner with — even after coups — we're still able to influence them."

African countries argue that it isn't just training they need, but resources and modern military equipment if they hope to counter rising extremism.

Brennan stressed that the U.S. carries with it the weight of the entire NATO alliance, unlike its competitors, but he conceded that Washington must "be able to resource our partners appropriately, and really expand the relationship with them ... to help make Africa prosperous, free and a partner of choice."

With Flintlock, the U.S. promises long-term investment in the African continent. But that long-view security strategy is competing for African partnerships amid a fast-growing terror threat, on a battlefield crowded with malign actors.

Debora Patta is a CBS News foreign correspondent based in Johannesburg. Since joining CBS News in 2013, she has reported on major stories across Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Edward R. Murrow and Scripps Howard awards are among the many accolades Patta has received for her work.

Twitter Instagram

CBS News · by Debora Patta

12. Ukraine's special forces have developed new tech that allows drones to fly without GPS, so Russia can't jam them: report

Smart innovative Ukrainians where necessity is the mother of ...

Ukraine's special forces have developed new tech that allows drones to fly without GPS, so Russia can't jam them: report

Business Insider · by Sinéad Baker

Military & Defense

Sinéad Baker

2024-05-31T12:27:48Z

Facebook Email Twitter LinkedIn Copy Link

Read in app

A Ukrainian drone pilot with a reconnaissance drone in Luhansk, Ukraine, August 19, 2023. AP Photo/Bram Janssen

This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? .

Ukraine's special forces have developed new drone tech that Russia can't jam.
Drones can now fly and hit targets without GPS or operator input, The Economist reported.
Russia and Ukraine are in a drone and electronic warfare arms race.

Ukraine's special forces have developed new software that allows drones to fly without the use of GPS, limiting the impact of Russian jamming.

The software, called Eagle Eyes, allows unmanned drones to travel using sight rather than satellite-based GPS navigation, The Economist reported.

It uses AI to compare live video of the area below the drone to a map made from photos and video that a reconnaissance aircraft previously collected, the report said.

This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.

This means that drones can keep flying even if Russia tries to jam them.

The software can also recognize targets, like missile launchers and tanks, and can drop bombs or fly into them without the drone operator needing to give the order, according to The Economist.

Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to NATO and former special representative for Ukraine, told the outlet that the technology could be a big factor in helping Ukraine turn the tide against Russia, but that it will take time to see how effective it is.

Kirill Chubotin / Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images

A commander in a special forces corps called White Eagle, which is helping develop the technology, said the software is already being used widely, and is cheap enough to be used on kamikaze drones: drones that are destroyed on impact, making them ill-suited to expensive upgrades.

Austin: Nations Around Indo-Pacific Uniting Around Shared Values

defense.gov · by David Vergun

The United States is a Pacific nation. This region — more than any other — is shaping the course of this century, said Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III delivers plenary remarks at the International Institute for Strategic Studies 21th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, June 1, 2024.

Download: Full Size (1.16 MB)

Photo By: Chad J. McNeeley, DOD

VIRIN: 240601-D-TT977-1040

The secretary was in Singapore today for the Shangri-La Dialogue to discuss regional and global security issues.

"The United States is deeply committed to the Indo-Pacific. We are all in. And we're not going anywhere," he said.

"The United States and this region are more secure and more prosperous when we work together."

Over the past three years, likeminded countries across this region have deepened their ties — and delivered real-world results for the people of the Indo-Pacific, Austin said.

Spotlight: Focus on Indo-Pacific

A new model of convergence in this region is not a single alliance or coalition. Instead, it is a set of overlapping and complementary initiatives and institutions, propelled by both a shared vision and a shared sense of mutual obligation, the secretary said.

"This new convergence is about coming together, not splitting apart. It isn't about imposing one country's will. It's about summoning our sense of common purpose. It isn't about bullying or coercion. It's about the free choices of sovereign states. And it's about nations of goodwill uniting around the interests that we share and the values that we cherish," he said.

These interests and values, Austin said, include respect for sovereignty and international law, free flow of commerce and ideas, freedom of the seas and skies, openness, transparency, accountability, equal dignity for every person, and the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue — not coercion or conflict. "And certainly not through so-called punishment.

"Let me be clear. The United States can be secure only if Asia is secure. That's why the United States has long maintained our presence in this region. And that's why we continue to make the investments necessary to meet our commitments to our allies and partners," Austin said.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Bastian Giegerich, director-general and chief executive of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, address audience members at the 21th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, June 1, 2024.

Download: Full Size (1.63 MB)

Photo By: Chad J. McNeeley, DOD

VIRIN: 240601-D-TT977-1005

Austin cited some of the achievements of Indo-Pacific nations working together:

Co-developing with Japan a glide phase interceptor to counter hypersonic threats.
With India, making historic progress on co-producing fighter jet engines and armored vehicles.
Working closely with the Philippines to field maritime defensive capabilities and expand maritime domain awareness across the region.
Making major investments in our submarine industrial base to help strengthen our AUKUS partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom.
Working together to fortify the shared capacity of the defense industrial bases of our allies and partners. That's why so many countries — including the United States — are endorsing a Statement of Principles today to strengthen the resilience of the region's defense industrial bases.
With Japan and South Korea, creating a multi-year trilateral exercise plan. Its highlight is a newly named exercise that will allow our countries to train together in unprecedented ways.
With the Philippines, Australia, France and more than a dozen observer countries, just concluded the biggest Balikitan exercise yet.
Making huge strides in two other major multinational exercises: Super Garuda Shield in Indonesia and Cobra Gold in Thailand. They're both getting larger and more complex.
With Japan, forward-stationing the most advanced formation in the U.S. Marine Corps.
With the Philippines, expanding U.S. rotational access to four new sites in the Philippines through the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement.
With Papua New Guinea, finalized a historic Defense Cooperation Agreement last year.
With Tokyo and Seoul, sharing early-warning data on North Korean missiles — in real time.
Advancing our partnership with Australia and Japan on an integrated air- and missile-defense architecture.

Spotlight: AUKUS: The Trilateral Security Partnership Between Australia, U.K. and U.S.

"These agreements are historic. And they're just the starting point," Austin said.

Austin also touched on Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which shocked the world, including the Indo-Pacific region. Russia's war of aggression "has provided us all with a preview of a world that none of us would want. It's a glimpse of a world where tyrants trample sovereign borders, a world where peaceful states live in fear of their neighbors, and a world where chaos and conquest replace rules and rights," he said.

Spotlight: Support for Ukraine

But Russia's lawless invasion also reminds us that free countries can rally together to help the victims of aggression. "Governments and people around the world have rushed to help Ukraine defend itself — including countries across the Indo-Pacific. And the United States will continue to stand strong for a free and secure Ukraine — and for an open world of rules, rights and responsibilities," he said.

57:25

defense.gov · by David Vergun

14. Special Forces veteran turned filmmaker spotlights unsung heroes in new docuseries

I look forward to seeing this and all the series.

Photos the link: https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/united-states-army-special-forces-veteran-filmmaker-black-ops-docu-series-documentary-amazon-prime-stream-movie-show-chris-mcphee-soldiers-story?utm

Information about the entire project is here: BLK OPS The Veterans History Project https://blkopsvhp.com/

Special Forces veteran turned filmmaker spotlights unsung heroes in new docuseries

wjla.com

WASHINGTON (7News) —

U.S. Army Special Forces veteran Chris McPhee knew he wanted to serve his country at the highest level.

"It takes a lot of hard work dedication and courage," said McPhee.

His first deployment was in 2002.

"Very top is [a] bronze star. I received two of those during my tour in Afghanistan," added McPhee. "the saying here'de oppresso liber' means free the oppressed."

"Unfortunately some of my battle buddies to my left and right didn’t make it but that’s even more of a reason why this means a lot," explained McPhee while showing 7News photos.

McPhee’s new weapon against the enemy of time – is his camera.

7News met him at the Vietnam War Memorial to discuss his docu-series 'Blk Ops'. The film project is pending release on Amazon Prime in June.

"As a green beret, how important is it for you to tell their stories?" 7News Anchow Michelle Marsh asked.

"Were the best people to do it," responded McPhee.

He and fellow veteran Ruben Ayala are focusing on diverse untold stories.

Retired U.S. Army Command Sergeant Major Nathaniel Frost- a green beret- lives in Fredericksburg, Virginia. He served multiple tours in Vietnam and he's featured in the series.

"That’s what I wanted to do. I wanted to be a paratrooper and I can remember that I've always said, that when I got out of school, I was going into the military," said Frost.

These first-hand accounts share narratives of why service is important.

"What surprised you in this process?" asked Marsh.

"I’m seeing myself in them and I can relate to what they have been holding in for so long," said McPhee.

To learn more about the docuseries, click here.

View This Story on Our Site

wjla.com

15. Get Serious About the Science of Influence

Influence operations are not a silver bullet. The problem with influence operations may be the science or it may be our own impatience and lack of will to commit to long term campaigns. We want instant gratification (i.e., results) and are not willing to commit the required intellectual rigor (and time) required to achieve effects - that cannot of course be guaranteed. So we would rather just continue to commit to removing bad guys from the battlefield and hope that works.

But our adversaries sure have been successful at influence operations - take Dau Tranh for example.

Excerpts:

To date, the few effects studies there are suggest that attempts to leverage psychological influence against foreign audiences have limited effectiveness and largely depend on an audience’s prior attitudes toward the messenger and message. Ukraine, for example, has successfully lobbied for international aid and support, but that success is limited to countries that already favored Ukraine—or at least opposed Russia.

Authoritarians’ domestic operations are another story entirely. For people living behind China’s Great Firewall, under constant, ubiquitous surveillance, the Communist Party controls both the information to which they have access and the information they can disseminate. While Beijing’s attempts at global information dominance have been futile, the party state’s internal efforts are disturbingly effective. Ministry of State Security Vice Minister Yuan Yikun (formerly Yuan Peng) put it this way: “What is truth and what is a lie is already unimportant; what’s important is who controls discourse power.”19 Perhaps that is not surprising to historians of autocratic regimes of the 20th century. What it suggests, though, is that in open, democratic societies, taking care of freedom—democratizing discourse power—is the best defense against foreign manipulation. Rorty’s claim to “take care of freedom, and truth will take care of itself,” implies, in other words, “that if people can say what they believe without fear, then . . . the task of justifying themselves to others and the task of getting things right will coincide.”20 If the United States wants to use influence operations to shape Russia and China’s behavior, and avoid war, it needs to get serious about the science of influence and institute a rigorous program of research that applies that science to the national security domain. The stakes are too high for anything less.

Get Serious About the Science of Influence

Information Warfare Essay Contest—First Prize

Soldier honors Native American heritage after religious accommodation

armytimes.com · by Jonathan Lehrfeld · May 31, 2024

An Army major is celebrating one year of having earned approval to wear his hair and tribe-specific regalia items in a way that honors his Native American heritage during appropriate service ceremonies.

Maj. Patrick Sorensen, a marketing and operations officer in the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, shared photos online displaying his longer hair adorned with eagle feathers meant to commemorate fallen soldiers.

In a recent interview, the soldier shared more about the accommodation and the meaning behind the approved hairstyle and regalia.

Maj. Patrick Sorensen poses in uniform while displaying regalia items he received approval to wear. (Sorensen’s Facebook)

Portions of this interview have been edited for length and clarity.

Can you discuss your background, service history and tribal affiliation?

I bounced around a lot as a kid, but I grew up mostly in Northern California, around the Humboldt County area.

I went to Humboldt State, where I got my bachelor’s degree in chemistry. And after that, I couldn’t find a job I thought I would be able to get after college, being a first generation four-year college student.

So, I joined the Army to do the student loan repayment program. Turned out I was pretty good at it, so I continued on and eventually went to Officer Candidate School and became a signal officer. I did that for about 10 years. In the last few years, I’ve transitioned to this marketing officer role.

To give more background, my mother, she is white. My father, he’s Native American and German. He grew up on the reservation in Grand Ronde, Oregon. I’m a member of The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, which is our federally recognized tribe. Being a confederated tribe means during the consolidation period … several tribes were brought together onto one reservation.

So, by blood I’m both Umpqua and Rogue River. Altogether, we have over 30 tribes and bands in our one federally recognized tribe, so it’s kind of a melting pot, even for one tribe.

Why was it important to you, your community and faith to request this accommodation? What was that process like?

I joined the Army in 2006. … I was a specialist. My mother passed away in 2009. And after that, I shaved my head and I actually kept my head shaved for about the next 10 years.

I was taught that our hair represents our spirit and our strength. There are a lot of different beliefs across North America about whether it actually physically holds power. Is it more symbolic in the religious sense of that growth, or that power, or that strength or that courage? For me, I do believe in the importance of hair. Now, if a little bit gets cut off, do I feel like something weird is going to happen? No. But it’s really important, culturally.

Aside from the hair’s own specific spiritual, religious significance, it’s also — if we’re using military terms — the fastening device that’s necessary to wear eagle feathers. And eagle feathers are the second part of the accommodation that I received. There are also different beliefs around eagle feathers — they can mean multiple things. For me, I wear my feathers in military uniform to represent my fallen soldiers. I have one additional feather that I wear, which I received from the spiritual leader of the Seneca Nation.

The group aiming to stop ‘endemic’ suicide among Native American vets

A group recently launched a program to address a rise in suicide among American Indian and Alaska Native veterans.

I was doing recruiting activities for West Point at a large Native American organization that focuses on STEM education for Natives. While I was there I met some Air Force women in charge of INET, which is the Indigenous Nations Equality Team. They actually were there speaking about religious accommodations for Native Americans in the Air Force. As soon as I heard them speak a light bulb went off, because I didn’t really think that was something that would be possible. I had wanted to grow my hair longer than regulation for a while, but I didn’t think that I could.

There’s no new regulations. This is actually the same religious accommodation under AR 600-20 as anyone else would follow. The difference is, because we have such a diversity of different beliefs, and backgrounds and cultures as Natives, it makes it a lot more complicated. We have different regalia items, which is kind of like our religious decor that we’d wear. And the hair can be cut in different ways. And so each accommodation is going to be a little bit different.

When were you granted approval? And what was your reaction?

It was signed on May 20, 2023. I was extremely excited. I was overjoyed.

(Courtesy of Patrick Sorensen)

Have others in the Indigenous community expressed interest in following your example?

What really happened was, my photos went viral. It was not on purpose. I originally posted it to Facebook … and then it kind of took off from there.

I am now up to 58 Native American soldiers who have reached out to me for support. And I’m not counting a handful of sailors and airmen who also reached out.

Can you discuss the importance of service in the American Indian/Alaskan Native community?

Native Americans serve at a higher rate than any other racial demographic. And the simple explanation for that is we’re a warrior culture. It’s kind of baked into our culture.

A ‘Warrior Tradition’: Why Native Americans continue fighting for the same government that tried to wipe them out

Since 9/11, nearly 19 percent of Native Americans have served in the armed forces, compared to an average of 14 percent of all other ethnicities.

Of course, we can be warriors in other ways. We can be leaders in the community without picking up weapons.

But as far as the military force is concerned, that is our modern equivalent to being warriors and being able to serve as warriors.

Are there other challenges or opportunities you’re interested in sharing for Native American troops?

You know, there are a lot of mixed feelings about military service in the Native community. Like I said, we generally are a warrior culture, and a lot of us choose to serve. But some tribes and some communities are a little bit against service. One of the reasons might be because of leaving your tribe or leaving your family — it can be hard.

For me, it was an opportunity to up my income, based on what was probably expected from my family background, and to be able to buy a home and do some of these things that I think every American dreams about.

When it comes to making higher ranks and having a seat at the table for large decision making discussions, I would love to see more Native Americans in positions like that.

About Jonathan Lehrfeld

Jonathan is a staff writer and editor of the Early Bird Brief newsletter for Military Times. Follow him on Twitter @lehrfeld_media

armytimes.com · by Jonathan Lehrfeld · May 31, 2024

17. How the World Can Deal With Trump

From a leader who has experience with him.

Excerpts:

The caricature of Trump as a one-dimensional, irrational monster is so entrenched that many forget that he can be, when it suits him, intelligently transactional. Like most bullies, he will bend others to his will when he can, and when he cannot, he will try to make a deal. But to get to the deal-making stage, Trump’s counterparts have to stand up to the bullying first.

Foreign leaders who need to get business done with Trump should be able to do so, but they will need to deal with him directly and persuade him why their proposal is a good deal for him. Leave the sentimental stuff about alliances and friendship for the press conferences. Trump’s question is always, “What’s in it for me?” His calculus is both political and commercial, but it is very focused. That should be no surprise—“America first” is his explicit slogan.

A Trump returned to the White House, convinced of his own genius, and with the evidence of an election win to prove it, will be surrounded by more yes men and sycophants than ever. In that environment, who will be prepared to tell him what he doesn’t want to hear?

The leaders of the countries that are the United States’ friends and allies will be among the very few who can speak truthfully to Trump. He can shout at them, embarrass them, even threaten them. But he cannot fire them. Their character, courage, and candor may be the most important aid they can render to the United States in a second age of Trump.

How the World Can Deal With Trump

Advice for Leaders Facing the Potential Return of “America First”

By Malcolm Turnbull

May 31, 2024

Foreign Affairs · by Malcolm Turnbull · May 31, 2024

In this year of major elections around the world, none is more consequential than that in the United States on the first Tuesday in November. Polling suggests Donald Trump will enter the White House again in January 2025. If he does, he will return to office perhaps no wiser but certainly more experienced and more convinced than ever of his own exceptional genius. More ominously, he will be determined to rectify in his second term what he insists was the major failing of his first: that both his own advisers and Washington officialdom got in his way.

Like most people, Trump is often wrong. Unlike most people, however, he is never in doubt. A powerful narcissistic self-belief has given him the strength to defy not just his many enemies but even reality itself. For four years, he has denied the outcome of the 2020 election and persuaded most of his party, and millions of Americans, to agree with him. There has never been such an effective and relentless gaslighter.

As president, he sought to surround himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear. When they stopped doing so, they were quickly sent packing. If Trump returns to the Oval Office, his instinct to crush critics and stack the executive branch with yes men will likely get even stronger. He will characterize his domestic critics as political opponents if they are Democrats and as traitors if they are Republicans. Trump will feel as invincible in his triumph as a Roman emperor, but he won’t have a slave by his side whispering, “Remember, you are mortal.”

Other leaders, especially those of countries that are close U.S. allies, have an opportunity and a responsibility to speak to Trump with a blunt but respectful candor that few of his advisers will be able to offer him. My own experience with Trump, when I was prime minister of Australia, is that he may not like strength and directness from other leaders, but after the rage subsides, he respects them for it. Around the world, leaders are once again fretting about how they can flatter Trump and avoid his wrath. But that pliant approach is not just the wrong strategy; it is the last thing the United States needs.

A NEW NORMAL

After Trump became president in 2017, most leaders around the world found themselves laboring under two incorrect assumptions. The first was that Trump’s wild rhetoric on the campaign trail would be abandoned there. The office and its responsibilities, some leaders believed, would constrain him. In November 2016, a few weeks after Trump’s surprising victory, the leaders of many of the world’s largest economies met in Lima at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. It was Barack Obama’s last summit as U.S. president, but it was Trump who overshadowed the whole APEC conference. By way of reassurance, many quoted former New York Governor Mario Cuomo’s remark: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” The line was repeated so often that a frustrated President Michelle Bachelet of Chile observed wryly that she had not seen many signs of poetry in the campaign that had just ended.

Many leaders expected that Trump would become more typically “presidential” once he entered the White House. That was certainly the view held by Chinese President Xi Jinping. He told me at the APEC summit that he was relaxed about the new U.S. president. Xi thought Trump’s campaign rhetoric would have no bearing on how he would govern, and most significantly, the Chinese president believed the U.S. system would not allow Trump to act in a way that undermined the American national interest.

And that was generally the consensus view: the institutions of government would keep Trump grounded in a conventional, administrative reality. His colorful campaign would be followed by business, more or less, as usual.

Trump in office was, if anything, wilder and more erratic than he had been on the campaign trail. Four extraordinary years finished with him encouraging a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol in a brazen attempt to overthrow the constitutional transfer of power to the new president. If Trump returns to the White House in 2025, only the willfully deluded could imagine that a second Trump administration would be less volatile and alarming than the first.

DON’T GIVE IN

The second misapprehension world leaders held was that the right way to deal with Trump was how Benjamin Disraeli, the nineteenth-century British prime minister, advised people to deal with royalty: to use flattery and “lay it on with a trowel.” Of course, men like Trump invite sycophancy. They use their power and caprice to encourage others to tell them what they want to hear. But this is precisely the wrong way to deal with Trump, or any other bully. Whether in the Oval Office or on the playground, giving in to bullies encourages more bullying. The only way to win the respect of people such as Trump is to stand up to them.

But that defiance brings with it great risks. Almost all world leaders hope to have a good, or at least cordial, relationship with the United States. And they know that if they have a falling out with the U.S. president, there is no guarantee that their own people, let alone their own media, would take their side. This is particularly so in countries where a right-wing, so-called conservative media generally supports Trump and his style of politics. Trump’s biggest echo chamber in the United States is the Fox News network, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also controls extensive media assets in Australia and the United Kingdom.

When Trump became president, I had been prime minister of Australia for nearly 18 months. I had never done business with him but knew a lot of people who had, and more important, I had dealt with many men like Trump—including big, dominating billionaires and media barons such as Conrad Black, Jimmy Goldsmith, Bob Maxwell, Murdoch, and Kerry Packer. So when my collision with Trump came, I was shaken but not surprised.

In 2016, I had reached an agreement with Obama that a number of asylum seekers who had sought to enter Australia irregularly by boat could be settled in the United States, subject to the usual security vetting. Australia had learned over the years that the only way to stop human smuggling was to ensure that nobody who came unlawfully by boat could settle in our country. This policy had been strictly applied under Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, who held the office from 1996 to 2007, but was modified under his Labor successors Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. The result was a dramatic increase in human smuggling. When Rudd returned as prime minister for a few months, in late 2013, he tried to reinstate the Howard-era policies, and as a consequence, several thousand asylum seekers were intercepted and detained in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

The Liberals returned to government in October 2013 under Tony Abbott, whom I replaced as prime minister in September 2015. Our governments and all those that succeeded us have followed a strict zero-tolerance approach to human smuggling. And it has worked. But there were still the asylum seekers who had been diverted to Papua New Guinea and Nauru. If they were brought to Australia, I feared, the flow of boats would start up again. So the deal with Obama was a practical and humane solution. In return, Australia had agreed to accept some very difficult immigration cases for the United States.

The only way to win Trump’s respect is to stand up to him.

From the moment Trump was elected, my government sought assurances that the deal would be honored, and we had every indication it would be. But then, just before a scheduled call with the president a few days after his inauguration, Vice President Mike Pence called Julie Bishop, Australia’s foreign minister, and Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, called his counterpart in my office, Justin Bassi, to say that under no circumstances should I raise this issue on the call because Trump would not honor the agreement we had entered into with his predecessor.

I did raise the issue. On the call, I told Trump that Australia expected the United States to stick to its word. Trump was furious, raging that the deal was a terrible one, that it would kill him politically, that Obama had been a fool to do it. It was daunting to be yelled at by the president of the United States, but I stood my ground. By the end of the call, Trump had, with great reluctance, agreed to go along with it. He ended by telling me it was the most unpleasant call he had had that day. A call to Putin, on the other hand, had been pleasant by comparison, he said.

Trump made it clear that he was proceeding with the deal unhappily. But he also accepted, as I had suggested, that he could honor the deal his predecessor had made without endorsing it as a good one. Details of the call were leaked in Washington, eventually with a transcript, all designed to show that Trump went along with the deal with grudging reluctance.

There was enormous anxiety in Canberra about how this would play out. Would he actually honor the deal? As it turned out, he did. Would this row adversely affect other aspects of the relationship? And most important, would Trump bear a grudge?

We met again in May 2017, only four months later, and by this time, he was joking with me and our wives about the refugee deal, complaining that he had agreed to it but in the way he might have about paying too much for a building. I was “a tough negotiator,” he told his wife, Melania Trump. “Just like you, Donald,” she replied.

A combination of character and circumstance allowed the relationship between Trump and me, as leaders, to get off on the right foot. By standing my ground, arguing my case, and not backing down, I had not only persuaded him to stick to the deal I had made with Obama but also won his respect.

MAKE THE CASE

Most presidents and prime ministers delegate considerable authority, formally and informally, to their advisers and officials. Meetings with foreign leaders are negotiated well in advance by ambassadors and officials. The outcome of the meeting is as scripted as the talking points.

The Trump White House did not work like that. Trump was the only decision-maker. Staff could advise him however they pleased, but most didn’t last long anyway. The only word that mattered was Trump’s, and he did not like being scripted—in any event, he rarely read from the script. He was the dealmaker, so he wanted to do the deal, on the spot, in the room.

In my experience with Trump, this meant that ambassadors and foreign ministers, no matter how capable, could offer much less assistance or influence. The key relationship lay between Trump and the foreign leader.

This practice poses both a challenge and an opportunity for foreign leaders trying to gain traction in the White House. It means that their ambassadors are less influential. On the other hand, if it is possible to persuade Trump that it is in his interest to change course, he will. But to do that, a foreign leader has to win Trump’s respect and make a strong case.

I observed such a scenario when I handled another difficult issue that threatened ties between Canberra and Washington during Trump’s first term: trade. In March 2018, Trump announced he was going to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports of 25 percent and ten percent, respectively. Not only was Trump keen on these tariffs, but so were some of his key advisers, including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

Turnbull and Trump in Washington, D.C., February 2018

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Trump’s views on trade were simplistic. But they were strongly held. He viewed a trade deficit as evidence that the United States was losing and a trade surplus as a sign it was winning. He gave Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe a hard time on the U.S. trade deficit with Japan, as he did other allied leaders, but his greatest anxiety was the huge trade deficit with China.

I had two arguments for Trump on tariffs, and he listened to both, despite resistance from his key trade officials. First, Australia exported a modest quantity of steel to the West Coast of the United States only because the cost of shipping steel, almost all for roofing, across the Pacific was less than half the cost of shipping it to California from steel makers in the Midwest and East Coast. A 25 percent tariff on Australian steel would not make U.S. steel more competitive on the West Coast; it would simply raise the price of steel roofs. We went through the numbers several times. He knew the building industry, and he knew the product, and he listened more attentively than usual.

Second, I said that if Trump’s argument for tariffs was to correct trade terms with other countries that were not fair and reciprocal, why should he impose any tariff on Australian exports? Australia and the United States had maintained a free trade agreement for years. The United States also enjoyed a large trade surplus with Australia. “No tariffs and no quotas,” I said to him. “In fact, it cannot get any better. And a massive $25 billion surplus in your favor. Truth be told, you have the best possible trade deal ever with Australia.”

If the United States imposed tariffs or an import quota on Australia, with whom it had the best possible trade deal, it would be seen as doing so simply because it could. “People will be able to say,” I told Trump, that “‘the Aussies give you the best possible deal and they still get a quota. So this is not about fair and reciprocal trade at all.’”

We had several direct discussions on the tariff question, both in person and on the phone. I wrote a pithy letter to Trump summarizing our arguments, which Matt Pottinger, one of his key national security advisers, helpfully read to him. He listened and he changed his mind because he was persuaded that it was in his interest to do so.

SPEAKING TRUTH TO TRUMP

The caricature of Trump as a one-dimensional, irrational monster is so entrenched that many forget that he can be, when it suits him, intelligently transactional. Like most bullies, he will bend others to his will when he can, and when he cannot, he will try to make a deal. But to get to the deal-making stage, Trump’s counterparts have to stand up to the bullying first.

Foreign leaders who need to get business done with Trump should be able to do so, but they will need to deal with him directly and persuade him why their proposal is a good deal for him. Leave the sentimental stuff about alliances and friendship for the press conferences. Trump’s question is always, “What’s in it for me?” His calculus is both political and commercial, but it is very focused. That should be no surprise—“America first” is his explicit slogan.

A Trump returned to the White House, convinced of his own genius, and with the evidence of an election win to prove it, will be surrounded by more yes men and sycophants than ever. In that environment, who will be prepared to tell him what he doesn’t want to hear?

The leaders of the countries that are the United States’ friends and allies will be among the very few who can speak truthfully to Trump. He can shout at them, embarrass them, even threaten them. But he cannot fire them. Their character, courage, and candor may be the most important aid they can render to the United States in a second age of Trump.

MALCOLM TURNBULL was Prime Minister of Australia from 2015 to 2018.

Foreign Affairs · by Malcolm Turnbull · May 31, 2024

18. Army chief lays out what he wants from industry for C2 Next

This is probably one of the most important capabilities that we must get right for future warfighting.

However, I am reminded of something I learned in 1985 at Graf as one of the OICs of the Tank Table XII Gunnery range for all of the 3d ID tanks.

I watched platoon after platoon get evaluated by senior armor NCOs critiquing every aspect of their gunnery, from platoon fire commands to maneuver to targets hit, etc., all evaluated strictly in accordance with doctrine. I thought of it as a tanker's ballet. - it was a thing of beauty and as an infantryman at the time I really learned to appreciate the firepower and capabilities of the M1 Abrams tank.

After division gunnery was over I had to return to Graf to OIC the range as the same Armor NCOs evaluated the 3d ID company competing in the Canadian Army Trophy. They achieved better times and better target hits than any of the platoons in 3d ID yet they failed Tank Table XII. They failed because they did not use fire command IAW doctrine. In fact they used almost no communication and based on their training they were able to shoot faster by making quicker decisions without commands and hitting the right targets because they were so well trained and disciplined that decentralized decision making, even at the platoon level gave them an advantage. Of course they had a huge advantage over any other company in the division. They had access to the highest level of maintenance (they had a couple of spare tank engines carried on a flatbed with a full maintenance that could conduct depot level maintenance as I think recall). And most importantly their ammunition allocation was equal to about the entire division's annual training ammunition for all 250 tanks. So it is not a fair comparison but it does show what prioritization and training can do when provided with the resources. But despite the advantages the real capability was being able to operate faster without the use of the doctrinal fire commands and processes. They failed at doctrine but they won at killing more of the enemy faster than anyone else (on a training range).

Now it is not quite completely or perhaps even closely analogous but the lesson for me is that on the modern battlefield perhaps we need to be able to do more with less talk. Yes data transmission can speed things up but the fastest data in the world cannot speed decisions made in the human mind. And we are also going to have to learn to operate without data and without perfect comms as our adversaries advance in electronic warfare. And of course with all that perfect data that we have access to we both become dependent (and perhaps overly so) on it as well as overloaded by it. Perhaps the principles of mission command really need to be taken more seriously. And decentralized decision making is really the key. For all our advanced communications and stat access we tend to gravitate toward command control at the higher level rather than seeking to decentralize command and control and ensure decisions are being made at the correct lowest level. The higher level that decisions are made the slower the organization operates. Perhaps it is counterintuitive but maybe mission command should be defined by the highest levels of command making fewer or even the fewest decisions.

So while we develop the exquisite communications capabilities we ought to think about how to operate without being completely dependent on them and how we can use them less in order to make faster decisions. Less is more is something I usually hate to hear but maybe it could be helpful here.

Apologies for the Saturday morning rambling and stream of consciousness.

Army chief lays out what he wants from industry for C2 Next - Breaking Defense

C2NG is the Army’s joint effort with industry to build a “data-centric” command and control system facilitated through network transport.

breakingdefense.com · by Carley Welch · May 31, 2024

Then Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George answers questions from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2023. George was nominated to become the next Army Chief of Staff by President Joseph R. Biden. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. David Resnick)

PHILADELPHIA — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George signed off on new requirements for C2 Next Generation (C2NG) Wednesday, highlighting the new program’s desired functionalities and how industry can contribute to the program.

Among the key attributes George hopes to see out of this effort: a consolidated network architecture, servicemembers using personal mobile devices and collaboration throughout the service. But most of all, the Army’s top officer is looking to make things as easy as possible for forces in the field.

“I have been a customer of the network for most of my career. Nothing is more frustrating to me in doing this and going out as a brigade commander, as a division commander, or as a corps commander and seeing people struggling more with time to get the network to work than actually fighting the enemy,” he said during a panel at a technical exchange meeting Wednesday.

C2NG is the Army’s joint effort with industry to build a “data-centric” command and control system facilitated through network transport. The goal is to reinvent the service’s enterprise data architecture and revamp its operational software framework. Basically, the program is designed to create one common data access layer.

C2NG differs from C2 Fix, another Army network initiative; C2NG is a whole new architecture whereas C2 Fix is designed to revitalize the Army’s current network infrastructure. The two projects are working in parallel, Col. Mike Kaloostian, director for transport and security, Next Generation C2 AFC, said during an interview with Breaking Defense.

In doing so, the service will create a unified “flattened” architecture which servicemembers can seamlessly communicate through.

“In the past, it’s been mission command systems that are created and developed in silos, and then we have to kind of stitch the data together. What we’re trying to do now is develop something that’s going to be flat across the board, an open and standard architecture,” Kaloostian told Breaking Defense.

With this open architecture, servicemembers can communicate much more easily using modern technology like personal tablets, phones and computers through one application, George said Wednesday.

“So rather than having a truck or two trucks, and 10 people, you have an application and that’s where we have to go. This makes me more lethal, survivable on the battlefield and that tech exists,” he said.

Having a central application that servicemembers can communicate through also allows the program to require less training and is “very intuitive,” Lt. Col. Michael Stallings, Squadron Commander 1 ID 1 HBCT added during Thursday’s panel.

“It was very intuitive for my soldiers to use. We had soldiers able to use it with very minimal training. They were able to pull intelligence feeds, call for fire, see blue and red positions, you know, things that we need at the tactical level, very intuitively, and they were able to leverage functionality that we weren’t trained on because it was very, very intuitive,” he said Thursday, describing an experience he had at an experimental demonstration of C2NG.

Sense of urgency

C2NG is still in the early experimental stage, but the project is moving forward with “a sense of urgency,” Kaloostian said. The first experimental exercise has been completed, and the next one will be in September at NetModx, where the program’s susceptibility to hacking and jamming will be tested.

The official kick-off of C2NG started as soon as George signed off on the new requirements — or what the service formally calls “characterizations” — the Army is looking for industry partners to fulfill, Kaloostian said. He added that he suspects the service will release a requirements document for C2NG no earlier than the Army’s Project Convergence Capstone 5 next spring.

Kaloostian stated the pressing need of setting up the new network infrastructure is due to emerging threats from adversaries and the rapid shift toward digital warfare

“[We need to] develop a network now, that can ingest all of that data, and then use emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, and those algorithms to help make sense of that data. So commanders can use it to actually make decisions on the run, or, you know, in the midst of conflict, because right now, that’s hard to do,” he said.

Still, Kaloostian emphasized that the process shouldn’t be hurried.

“There’s a sense of urgency to press forward to do this. However, we don’t want to rush to failure, if you will. We want to make sure we’re doing this the right way. Starting small starting at that data layer and working are working working outwards,” he said during Thursday’s panel.

What the Army is asking of industry

George approved the latest C2NG version on Wednesday, outlining specific industry partner needs for building it from scratch.

Two of those characteristics are related to building an intelligent threat network, built to create resiliency against cyber attacks or jamming. Another one is having “a lot of transport” ability, meaning there is plenty of secure access to the data layer C2NG encompasses.

The service is also looking for help implementing uniform software and application development and common platform services — essentially making sure the software developers are using the same tools and capabilities.

Kaloostian also said the service wants industry to help with a service model approach, eschewing the need to regularly buy new hardware in favor of a model that leases some of the hardware.

Most importantly Kaloostian said, is the service’s need for industry partners that can help develop a user interface that allows a commander to visualize the data — something he said is “at the core of C2 Next.”

Collaboration

For C2NG to be successful, Kaloostian said that the various parts of the service must work together to create this open system architecture.

“Having the warfighter feedback, making sure that we’re locked in with ASA(ALT) and the PEOs from the outset is so critically important to the way that we’re going to move forward,” Kaloostian said during Thursday’s panel.

He also noted that if the Army is successful in implementing the kind of network infrastructure C2NG hopes to develop, he predicts other services will begin using the same sort of open system architecture.

“We have to be able to communicate with multinational partners in the joint force, we’re always going to fight that way. What we’re doing from a data standpoint, that should allow other services to be able to share data, like what we’re doing should help inform CJAD2,” Kaloostian told Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com · by Carley Welch · May 31, 2024

19. More Biden Half Measures for Ukraine

Let us not fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

More Biden Half Measures for Ukraine

The U.S. will finally let Kyiv hit targets in Russia, at least a little.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-ukraine-weapons-strikes-russia-vladimir-putin-e44c6a37

By The Editorial Board

May 31, 2024 5:34 pm ET

Russian President Vladimir Putin PHOTO: SERGEI ILYIN/ZUMA PRESS

The Ukrainians have been on the brink since Vladimir Putin opened a new front in the country’s north this spring, and the Biden Administration is now responding late and with more half measures. That sums up two years of the Biden doctrine, and it won’t produce the Ukrainian success that is in U.S. interests.

The Administration this week revisited its ban on Ukraine using American weapons to strike targets on Russian territory. It has been obvious for months that Ukraine needs this authority. The Russian military is exploiting its home territory as a haven to gather troops and supplies and fire glide bombs at Ukrainian cities. The Russians can spread Ukraine’s military thin across a vast northern border without fear of retaliation.

More than two years into the war, the Biden Team has awakened to the problem of handing the enemy a sanctuary. The Administration is leaking to the press that Ukraine will now be able to strike targets in Russia. But wait: Ukraine will only be permitted to conduct some strikes with some types of weapons. Not allowed: Deep precision strikes with America’s long-range missiles known as ATACMS. In other words, memo to Mr. Putin: Move your forces a little further back and you’re good.

This timidity and micromanagement from the Biden Administration is the core reason the fight has devolved into a muddle. Mr. Biden’s advisers have run the Ukraine war on academic theories of managing escalation instead of a plan for defeating Russia’s invasion.

They have been reluctant to provide weapons quickly and at scale, other than air defenses. Mr. Biden approved training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 a year ago, but the jets still aren’t in the sky. It isn’t clear Kyiv will ever receive enough aircraft, munitions, trained pilots and maintenance support to beat the much larger Russian air force.

None of Mr. Biden’s self-imposed restraint has persuaded Mr. Putin to back off his aim to annex Ukraine. The Russian is mobilizing his society for a long war and turning to North Korea and Iran for ammunition. Even after enormous losses, Mr. Putin could still emerge from the war with a hardened military, fresh battlefield experience—and more territory closer to more of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization border.

Meanwhile, Congress in its last aid bill demanded the Biden Administration produce a document detailing its strategy and objectives in Ukraine, and it will be worth reading. The strategy has been to supply only enough weapons to avoid Ukrainian collapse. When the headlines turn dark for Ukraine, make a concession to Kyiv but not enough for it to persuade the Russians that they can’t win.

This failing strategy has left many Americans skeptical of supporting America’s core interests in a stable and peaceful Europe. GOP candidates ought to be pounding this record of weakness, and explaining to voters why Mr. Biden is wrong to force an American friend to fight with one hand tied behind its bac

WSJ Opinion: Joe Biden’s 2024 Election Bribes

Play video: WSJ Opinion: Joe Biden’s 2024 Election Bribes

Wonder Land: Joe Biden is using the U.S. Treasury the way a 1920s party boss would use the safe behind his desk. Images: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

Appeared in the June 1, 2024, print edition as 'More Biden Half Measures for Ukraine'.

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