Quotes of the Day:
"You didn't wait six months for a feasibility study to prove that an idea could work. You gambled that it might work. You didn't tie up the organization with red tape designed mostly to cover somebody's rear end. You took the initiative and the responsibility. You went around end, you went over somebody's head if you had to. But you acted. That's what drove the regular military and the State Department chair-warmers crazy about the OSS."
- OSS veteran and DCI William Casey
"I venture to say no war can be long carried on against the will of the people."
- Edmund Burke
"Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel . . . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth."
Mark Twain
1. RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JUNE 13 (PUTIN'S WAR)
2. As China Rattles Sabers, Taiwan Asks: Are We Ready for War?
3. Taiwan: Are the US and China heading to war over the island?
4. The battle of Donbas could prove decisive in Ukraine war
5. Airmen cleared of wrongdoing in deaths of Afghans who mobbed C-17 during Kabul evacuation
6. US Army to double cyber corps strength as focus shifts from counterinsurgency
7. Army secretary on combating military sexual assault: "Every leader at every level is focused on this"
8. China’s Crisis of Confidence
9. What Erdoğan Has Wrought?
10. US Defense Secretary Austin meets Thai leader to boost ties
11. Austin Impressed by Partnership and Professionalism Exhibited by U.S. Unit in Thailand
12. Geospatial Support for Atrocity Accountability Act
13. China 'will fight to the very end' over Taiwan: Chinese defense minister
14. There Is No Military Path for Ukraine To 'Defeat' Russia
15. Divisions in the west threaten Ukraine
16. Why War Fails
17. DC shifts to damage control as Ukraine defense fades
18. Kishida Vision for Peace: Japan’s Global Leadership Gambit
19. Biden must own the Ukraine war’s endgame
20. The Army Risks Reasoning Backwards in Analyzing Ukraine
21. From Complicated to Complex: The Changing Context of War
22. A Measure of American Decline
23. The future of US security depends on owning the ‘gray zone.’ Biden must get it right.
24. Ukraine Will Survive and the US is Preparing to Arm it for Years, Says Pentagon’s Hicks
25. US is building ‘exclusive’ club to confront, contain China
26. President Zelensky: Tell people in the occupied territories that the Ukrainian army will come
27. China’s ‘Particle Beam Cannon’ Is a Nuclear-Power Breakthrough
1. RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JUNE 13 (PUTIN'S WAR)
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JUNE 13
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 13
Kateryna Stepanenko, Mason Clark, George Barros, and Grace Mappes
June 13, 7:30pm ET
Click here to see ISW's interactive map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report.
Kremlin-sponsored outlet Izvestia published and quickly removed an appeal by the First Deputy Head of the Russian Presidential Administration Sergey Kirelenko for Russia to rebuild the Donbas on June 12 and blamed hackers for what they (likely falsely) claimed was a “fake publication.” Izvestia likely intended to save the article for a later date to set informational conditions for Russian annexation of Donbas. Kirelenko’s appeal stated that Russia will restore the Donbas regardless of high costs or if doing so lowers the standard of living in Russia.[1] Izvestia blamed unknown hackers for publishing a “fake article,” but it is possible that hackers instead released an article Izvestia had prepared to publish at a later date. The Kremlin previously published and removed an article prematurely celebrating a Russian victory over Ukraine in late February and discussing the capture of Ukraine in past tense in anticipation of Ukraine’s capitulation during the first Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Belarus.[2] Unnamed Kremlin officials previously identified Kirelenko as the future head of a new Russian federal district, which would encompass Donbas, and occupied settlements in Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts.[3]
Russia continues to deploy insufficiently prepared volunteer and reserve forces to reinforce its ongoing operations. Kremlin-sponsored outlet Izvestia released footage showing Russian artillery reservists undergoing training with old D-20 howitzers reportedly within 10 days of their deployment to Ukraine.[4] The reservists focused on learning how to operate hand-held weapons, despite being reportedly only days away from deploying. Social media footage also showed Russian forces transporting Russian volunteer and reserve units with T-80BV tanks (a variant produced in 1985, as opposed to the modernized T-80 BVM operated by the 1st Guards Tank Army) and BMP-1 armored personnel carriers (which have largely been phased out in favor of the BMP-2) to Belgorod Oblast on June 9.[5] Additional social media footage showed Russian forces transporting T-80BV tanks removed from storage in Moscow Oblast on June 9.[6]
Key Takeaways
- Russian forces pushed Ukrainian defenders from the center of Severodonetsk and reportedly destroyed the remaining bridge from Severodonetsk to Lysychansk on June 13, but Ukrainian officials reported that Ukrainian forces are not encircled in the city.
- Russian forces carried out unsuccessful ground assaults in an attempt to sever Ukrainian ground lines of communications (GLOCs) near Popasna and Bakhmut.
- Russian forces launched unsuccessful offensive operations southeast of Izyum and north of Slovyansk, and are likely setting conditions for an assault on Siversk and northwestern Ukrainian GLOCs to Lysychansk.
- Russian forces are likely conducting a limited offensive directly northeast of Kharkiv City in a likely attempt to push Ukrainian forces out of artillery range of Russian rear areas and secured some successes.
- Russian and Ukrainian forces are engaging in ongoing fighting for Davydiv Brid in northwestern Kherson Oblast.
- Russian occupation authorities likely staged terrorist activity in Melitopol and Berdyansk for Russia Day on June 12.
We do not report in detail on Russian war crimes because those activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We will continue to evaluate and report on the effects of these criminal activities on the Ukrainian military and population and specifically on combat in Ukrainian urban areas. We utterly condemn these Russian violations of the laws of armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, and humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.
- Main Effort—Eastern Ukraine (comprised of one subordinate and three supporting efforts);
- Subordinate Main Effort—Encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the cauldron between Izyum and Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
- Supporting Effort 1—Kharkiv City;
- Supporting Effort 2—Southern Axis;
- Activities in Russian-occupied Areas
Main Effort—Eastern Ukraine
Subordinate Main Effort—Southern Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk Oblasts (Russian objective: Encircle Ukrainian forces in Eastern Ukraine and capture the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas)
Russian forces conducted offensive operations in Severodonetsk and pushed Ukrainian forces away from the city center on June 13 but did not fully capture the city. Ukrainian Defense Ministry Spokesperson Oleksandr Motuzyanyk noted that Russian forces did not entirely clear Severodonetsk of Ukrainian resistance due to Russia’s reluctance to commit its (likely understrength) infantry units and overreliance on artillery and assault aviation for offensive operations.[7] The Ukrainian General Staff added that fighting is still ongoing in Severodonetsk.[8] Luhansk Oblast Administration Head Serhiy Haidai reported that Russian forces destroyed the last remaining bridge from Severodonetsk to Lysychansk and retain a significant artillery advantage over Ukrainian forces.[9] Deputy Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) Militia Eduard Basurin blamed Ukrainian forces for destroying the bridge (though it is highly unlikely Ukrainian forces would willingly destroy the bridge while any of their forces remained in Severodonetsk and this claim is likely false) and claimed that Russian forces are entirely encircling remaining Ukrainian troops in Severodonetsk.[10] Haidai denied Basurin’s claims of encirclement, noting that Ukrainian forces still have limited military channels for the evacuation of wounded troops and reinforcements despite the destruction of all three bridges.[11] Haidai specified that Ukrainian authorities could not conduct civilian evacuations and humanitarian efforts because Russian forces damaged the third bridge prior to its destruction on June 13. Geolocated footage showed that Ukrainian forces continued to hold defensive positions around the Azot Chemical Plant on June 12.[12] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces also conducted unsuccessful offensive operations on Metolkino, approximately 4km east of Severodonetsk.[13]
Russian forces unsuccessfully attacked settlements adjacent to Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) south of Lysyschansk. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces repulsed Russian assaults on Vrubivka, a settlement on a connecting road to the Lysychansk-Bakhmut T1302 highway.[14] Russian forces reportedly resumed ground assaults near Zolote, a settlement adjacent to the Ukrainian GLOCs along the T1303 highway to Lysychansk.[15] A Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) Militia commander (under the pseudonym Chapai) claimed that Russian forces seized Toshkivka, approximately 4.5km east of the T1303, but the Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces continued to shell Ukrainian positions in the settlement on June 13, indicating fighting likely remains ongoing.[16] Russian forces reportedly conducted unsuccessful assaults on Kodema and Novoluhanske - approximately 15 and 21km south of Bakhmut, respectively.[17] Pro-Russian Telegram Rybar claimed that elements of the Russian Wagner Group have been fighting in Pokrovske (12.5km east of Bakhmut) since June 11, but Ukrainian sources stated that Russian forces are carrying out aerial reconnaissance in the settlement.[18]
Russian forces launched unsuccessful offensive operations southeast of Izyum and in settlements north of Slovyansk but did not resume assaults in the Lyman area on June 13. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces attacked Bohorodychne, approximately 25km southeast of Izyum, but only secured the northwestern outskirts of the settlement.[19] Russian forces also launched an unsuccessful assault on Dolyna, a settlement along the E40 highway to Slovyansk.[20] Ukrainian military journalist Andriy Tsaplienko reported that Ukrainian forces are conducting counteroffensives just west of Izyum and have liberated Zavody and Spivakivka, but Ukrainian officials did not confirm this report.[21] Russian forces are likely continuing their preparations to cut off Ukrainian GLOCs to Lysychansk from Siversk and the northwest. Russian forces reportedly shelled Maiaky (just five kilometers northeast of Siversk) and transferred up to 80 units of military and artillery equipment to Kreminna and Starobilsk.[22] LNR Ambassador to Russia Rodion Miroshnik claimed that Russian forces will likely simultaneously attack Lysychansk and Siversk to block Ukrainian forces from retreating to Slovyansk.[23] Russian forces likely seek to set conditions for direct assaults against Siversk and settlements northwest of Lysychansk in the next two weeks.
Russian forces did not conduct any offensive operations east or west of Avdiivka on June 13 and continued to shell surrounding settlements.[24] Ukraine’s Joint Forces Task Force reported liberating three unnamed settlements and pushing back the line of contact by 15km in Donetsk Oblast, though ISW cannot independently verify this claim.[25]
Supporting Effort #1—Kharkiv City (Russian objective: Withdraw forces to the north and defend ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Izyum)
Russian forces are likely conducting a limited offensive directly northeast of Kharkiv City in a likely attempt to push Ukrainian forces out of artillery range of Russian rear areas. Russian forces made incremental territorial gains in settlements along the Ukrainian-Russian border northeast of Kharkiv City on June 13. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces launched partially successful ground assaults on the border settlements of Ternova and Izbutske, approximately 40km northeast of Kharkiv City, and secured the northern outskirts of Izbutske.[26] Pro-Russian Telegram channel Rybar claimed that Russian and Ukrainian forces are engaging in trench and artillery warfare in Tsupivka and Velyki Prokhody, just west and east of the Kharkiv City-Belgorod City highway.[27] Geolocated footage confirmed that Ukrainian forces continued to target Russian ammunition storages in Velyki Prokhody.[28] Kharkiv Oblast Head Oleg Synegubov reported that Russian forces launched MLRS strikes on residential areas of Kharkiv City overnight.[29]
Supporting Effort #2—Southern Axis (Objective: Defend Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts against Ukrainian counterattacks)
Ukrainian forces reportedly continued to gradually attack Russian positions on the eastern bank of Inhulets River in northwestern Kherson Oblast. The Ukrainian Southern Operational Command noted that Ukrainian and Russian forces engaged in heavy fighting in the Davydiv Brid area, an operationally significant settlement situated on the eastern Inhulets riverbank and on Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) along the T2207 highway.[30] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces conducted aerial reconnaissance over Davydiv Brid, but the scope of Ukrainian advances in the settlement remains unclear.[31] Russian forces continued to fortify their positions and reportedly strengthened the grouping of troops in areas near the Dnipropetrovsk-Kherson Oblast border.[32]
Ukrainian artillery struck Russian fuel and ammunition depots in Polohy, approximately 60km west of Zaporizhia-Donetsk Oblast border.[33]
Activity in Russian-occupied Areas (Russian objective: consolidate administrative control of occupied areas; set conditions for potential annexation into the Russian Federation or some other future political arrangement of Moscow’s choosing)
Russian authorities may have staged false flag attacks in Melitopol and Berdyansk on June 12, likely to accuse Ukrainian partisans of targeting civilians. Self-proclaimed head of the Zaporizhia Oblast Military-Civilian Administration Vladimir Rogov made a preliminary announcement that “terrorists” staged three explosions in Berdyansk, before retracting his statements and identifying the situation as an accident at the electrical station.[34] Rogov falsely maintained that Berdyansk residents attribute any emergency in the city to Ukrainian efforts to disturb peaceful life in “liberated” (Russian-occupied) regions. Self-proclaimed deputy head of the Zaporizhia Oblast Internal Affairs Ministry Alexei Selivanov also claimed that unknown assailants planted an explosive device in Melitopol to disrupt Russia Day (the day of adoption of the declaration of Russian state sovereignty after the collapse of the Soviet Union).[35] Zaporizhia Oblast Military Administration Head Oleksandr Starukh noted that Ukrainian authorities warned that Russian forces could stage terrorist activity prior to Russia Day.[36]
Russian occupation authorities continue to face personnel shortages that impede their occupation measures. The Ukrainian Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported that Russian forces in Mariupol were unable to recruit collaborators by promising individual applicants 10,000 rubles per month and switched to offering payments in food supplies, given the dire humanitarian situation in the city.[37] The GUR added that Russian occupation authorities are inviting any volunteers to clear out rubble and dead bodies in Mariupol. Mariupol Mayor’s Adviser Petro Andryushenko noted that the Russian occupation authorities are restricting access to humanitarian aid for individuals younger than 65 years of age.[38] Russian occupation authorities in Mariupol may be attempting to gain the support of elderly citizens and coerce younger residents to work with Russian forces in exchange for food. Russian occupation authorities additionally deployed Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) police officers to patrol Kherson City.[39] The GUR also noted that Russian occupation authorities are recruiting teachers without pedagogical education and transporting educators from Crimea to replace Melitopol teachers that refused to teach Russian curriculums.[40] Russian occupation authorities are also attempting to bribe civilians by offering debt forgiveness of all loans taken from Ukrainian banks.[41]
Russian occupation authorities continue to introduce new titles for personnel that agreed to cooperate with the Kremlin and its proxies. The Donetsk People’s Republic Head (DNR) Denis Pushilin appointed previous Ukrainian Mayor of Sviatohirsk Vladimir Bandura as the new Sviatohirsk Administration Head after Bandura agreed to cooperate with Russian forces.[42] Russian occupation authorities have seemingly eliminated the position of mayor in occupied settlements, likely to fully institute their own governance structures rather than taking over existing structures.
Russian occupation authorities are continuing to exploit Ukrainian agrobusiness and have reportedly banned the export of crops to Ukrainian government-controlled territories from Russian occupied settlements.[43] The GUR also noted that Russian forces are coercing Kherson Oblast businessmen and farmers to hand over 70% of their harvest to Crimean buyers at low profit margins.
[1] https://meduza dot io/news/2022/06/13/na-sayte-izvestiy-poyavilos-i-propalo-obraschenie-kirienko-so-slovami-o-vosstanovlenii-donbassa-dazhe-tsenoy-snizheniya-urovnya-zhizni-v-rossii
[3] https://meduza dot io/feature/2022/06/09/kak-utverzhdayut-istochniki-meduzy-kreml-hochet-ob-edinit-okkupirovannye-territorii-ukrainy-v-novyy-federalnyy-okrug-v-sostave-rf
[7] https://armyinform dot com.ua/2022/06/13/operatyvna-sytuacziya-na-fronti-bryfing-rechnyka-mo-ukrayiny-15/
[10] https://ria dot ru/20220613/severodonetsk-1794993032.html
[21] https://slavdelo dot dn.ua/2022/06/13/boi-za-izyum-vsu-osvobodili-spivakovku-i-zavody-i-podoshli-k-gorodu-karta-mestnosti/
[34] https://ria dot ru/20220612/terakt-1794845002.html
[37] https://gur dot gov.ua/content/na-okupovanykh-terytoriiakh-rashysty-proponuiut-robotu-za-izhu.html
[40] https://gur dot gov dot ua/content/na-okupovanykh-terytoriiakh-rashysty-proponuiut-robotu-za-izhu.html
[43] https://gur.gov dot ua/content/na-okupovanykh-terytoriiakh-rashysty-proponuiut-robotu-za-izhu.html
2. As China Rattles Sabers, Taiwan Asks: Are We Ready for War?
Ukraine as a wake-up call for Taiwan. I wonder if the PRC expected that?
There are a lot of photos at the link.
The title photo is interesting with the variety of equipment and weapons (real and training). The first man is weaning a hat with an American flag on it.
As China Rattles Sabers, Taiwan Asks: Are We Ready for War?
Ukraine’s stubborn resistance to invasion, and the help that has poured in as a result, has both inspired Taiwan and made it rethink its own military strategy.
TAIPEI, Taiwan — Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine has jolted Taiwan into confronting the specter of a sudden attack from the island’s own larger and more powerful neighbor: China.
The invasion has given new weight to the authoritarian vision of China’s leader, Xi Jinping, who has long laid claim to self-governed Taiwan for the “rejuvenation” of China — much as President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia did with Ukraine. To many in Taiwan, Ukraine has been a lesson in the tactics and weaponry that could slow a more powerful invading force. It has also been a stark warning that the island may be inadequately prepared for a full-scale attack.
Taiwan’s defenses are, by many accounts, ill-equipped and understaffed. Its president, Tsai Ing-wen, has vowed to defend the island, but she has struggled to impose a new strategic vision on the uniformed leadership.
Taiwan spends billions on fighter jets and submarines, yet its conscripts barely get enough ammunition for training. The mandatory military service is seen by many as too short, and the reservist program, insufficiently rigorous. The military is building a professional force, but has struggled to recruit and retain highly skilled soldiers.
Image
Last month, dozens of people rallied in Liberty Square in Taipei in support of Ukraine.
Image
A view of the Taipei skyline in March.
Now, Ukraine has been an impetus for change.
When Wu Chiuan-syun, a computer engineer in Taipei, gathered with other army reservists in a dense, humid forest in central Taiwan in March, they trained longer and harder than soldiers like them had in recent years. Nearly every day, he said, his commanders would remind the men that the threat from China was growing.
“Ukraine showed us that you need to first show to others that you have the resolve to defend yourself; only then will others come and help,” Mr. Wu, 31, said.
Image
Rescue workers taking part in an exercise simulating buildings and public transportation being attacked by Chinese missiles in Hsinchu, Taiwan, in May.
Image
Rescue workers practiced moving a man playing the role of an injured victim in May’s simulated attack exercise.
Underlying Taiwan’s defense dilemma is a question left unanswerable by design: Will the United States send military forces to Taiwan’s aid? In May, President Biden suggested he would, but the United States offers no explicit security guarantees, a strategy it hopes will avoid either provoking Beijing or emboldening Taiwan to declare formal independence.
Mr. Xi has said he seeks a peaceful unification with Taiwan, and he may be deterred by the huge economic and diplomatic blowback China would suffer for an invasion. But China has also been pointed in its warnings. Its defense minister, Gen. Wei Fenghe, said over the weekend that Beijing would “fight to the very end” for Taiwan. It is sending fighter jets toward the island almost daily — including 30 aircraft in one day last month alone.
The concern is that such maneuvers could, intentionally or otherwise, be a prelude to conflict.
“We cannot wait; we are competing with time,” said Michael Tsai, a former defense minister of Taiwan. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine happened in an instant — who knows when the P.L.A. might choose to invade Taiwan.”
The ‘Porcupine Strategy’
Several military drills conducted in January were intended as a show of force to China — to demonstrate how Taiwan planned to stop invaders from intruding on its airspace, landing on its beaches and, in the worst case, taking over its cities.
At an air base in central Taiwan, a siren wailed, and within minutes pilots were taking off in F-16 fighter jets to ward off intruders. Off the northern coast, the navy debuted new mine-laying craft as two small warships fired live ammunition. In a southern city, smoke filled the air as soldiers practicing urban combat shuffled past fake storefronts of bubble tea shops and cafes, exchanging gunfire with combatants.
The drills also reflected a continuing conflict at the heart of Taiwan’s defense strategy.
The original idea, after Nationalist leaders fled to Taiwan in 1949, was to one day reclaim the mainland. For decades, even as that prospect dimmed, Taiwan had approached the threat of an invasion by China by buying or developing traditional, expensive weapons, like the fighter jets showcased at the air base. But Taiwan has been outgunned by China, which invested heavily to build what is now one of the world’s largest militaries.
Seeing the growing imbalance, American officials and some Taiwan strategists have recently accelerated efforts to push Taiwan to instead amass a large number of smaller weapons. That includes naval craft such as the ships in the drill that can quickly lay sea mines to block forces trying to land.
Advocates of the strategy argue that Taiwan, like Ukraine, could easily deploy Stinger missiles, which can be shoulder-launched at aircraft, and portable Harpoon missiles, which can attack ships. Unlike tanks and large battleships, these are hard to target and destroy.
Image
Warplanes preparing to take off at Hsinchu Military Air Base in Taiwan. Beijing has been sending fighter jets and other military aircraft toward the island almost daily.
Image
Soldiers stand guard outside a military facility at the end of a new and enhanced refresher training for reservists in March in Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
“The idea is to become so hard to swallow that the enemy thinks twice about launching any action,” said Lee Hsi-min, former chief of Taiwan’s Navy and chief of the general staff, who has been among the most vocal proponents in Taiwan for the so-called asymmetric approach.
An all-out assault on Taiwan, involving air, naval and land forces, would be more complex than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but some American and Taiwanese defense officials think that in the coming years Beijing would be able to pull it off.
The hope is that if deterrence fails, the so-called porcupine strategy could allow Taiwan to buy time for the United States to possibly help. President Tsai said in 2019 that Taiwan would be able to hold out for 24 hours, and that China would then face international pressure.
Ms. Tsai has purchased Harpoon missiles and other weapons in line with the strategic shift, but she faces resistance from some military leaders. They argue that smaller weapons are not useful for standing up to China in visible ways. Long-range missiles capable of striking the mainland could deter Beijing, the military leaders say. Fighter jets can respond when Chinese forces buzz near Taiwan. The larger platforms are also politically popular.
Should China invade, Taiwan’s defenses will almost certainly crumble unless the United States and its allies help. Some in Taiwan consider it too risky to give up their most lethal weapons without concrete promises of support.
“We can’t be sure that the U.S. will come to rescue us,” said Ou Si-fu, a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a think tank affiliated with Taiwan’s defense ministry. “Hence, Taiwan needs some strike capabilities. Otherwise, you are binding your hands and waiting to die.”
Improving the Soldiers
Last fall, Hu Yu-huan, 25, reported for his mandatory military service, eager to learn how to defend his homeland. What he found was not boot camp but summer camp.
When he and his fellow conscripts jogged, the pace was set by the slowest man, who tired after 100 yards. They spent hours clearing weeds and sweeping. Mr. Hu, a half-marathon runner, said the four months of service left him 13 pounds heavier and in “the worst shape of my life.”
As Taiwan democratized in the late 1980s, newly elected officials cut the defense budgets, leading to a shrinking force. Taiwan has only around 169,000 active-duty military personnel and around 2 million reservists, compared with China’s two million active-duty soldiers.
Image
Reservists after completing a two-week refresher training program that officials say was more rigorous than in the past.
Image
A reservist being dismissed in March after completing Taiwan’s tougher refresher program. The new program, which is still in a pilot phase, lasts two weeks instead of one, and puts more emphasis on combat training.
The island’s leaders have been seeking to phase out conscription in favor of a professional all-volunteer force. Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement that it had reached more than 95 percent of its recruitment goals last year. But experts say the military’s authoritarian legacy, along with the relatively low pay, has made it hard to attract skilled recruits.
Combat training has also been widely criticized as perfunctory, whether for the men over 18 doing mandatory service, like Mr. Hu, or for the reservists. Three decades ago, conscripts had to train for up to three years and run about three miles a day. Now, they serve for four months and run fewer than two miles per day, if at all, according to experts and recent trainees.
Col. Sun Li-fang, a spokesman for Taiwan’s defense ministry, said that physical fitness requirements for conscripts were eased in line with scientific guidance and the military had to take safety into account in designing its training.
The Tsai administration is considering extending the length of military service to up to a year. It is testing a refresher program for reservists that is two weeks long instead of one, with more hours spent on combat training.
Mr. Wu, the computer engineer, was among the first to take part in the new program. In addition to shooting practice, Mr. Wu said, he and the other reservists trekked on mountain roads to test the group’s ability to carry heavy weapons for long periods of time. By the end, Mr. Wu said, he felt ready for war.
“As long as I have a gun,” he said, “I’ll be ok.”
‘The Tip of the Spear’
On Taiwanese talk shows, pundits and officials debate the probability of a Chinese invasion. In the legislature, lawmakers fret about the preparedness of Taiwan’s troops. In messaging groups, activists discuss ways to involve the public in the island’s defense.
The new urgency reflects a sharp change in attitudes in Taiwan, where many had long been indifferent to China’s advances, resigned to defeat or blindly optimistic about support from the United States.
Ms. Tsai has sought to leverage the Ukraine conflict to push her agenda. She appointed a team of experts to study Ukraine’s strategy. The question is whether she can push through potentially unpopular changes, such as further raising military spending, currently at just over 2 percent of Taiwan’s gross domestic product.
“We cannot see the suffering of the Ukrainian people as news only,” said Alexander Huang, a professor at Tamkang University’s Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies. “It’s got to be a lesson that we need to learn.”
Image
Participants in a combat medic training session crept around a parking lot during a battlefield simulation in May.
Image
Participants in a combat medic training session learned how to wrap bandages to stop bleeding from a wound.
A trained civilian force could be the “tip of the spear” in Taiwan’s defense, said Enoch Wu, founder of Forward Alliance, a nongovernmental group that holds civil defense workshops. “That’s what’s going to make or break Taiwan.”
Some citizens are making their own preparations.
On a recent Saturday, about two dozen people simulated a gunfight in a parking lot near Taipei in a class run by PolarLight, a company that teaches basic first aid and shooting skills, using realistic airsoft guns. They crept around parked cars and buses, aiming their airsoft rifles at imaginary opponents. Some fell to the ground, while others rushed in to move them to safety and apply tourniquets.
Danny Shi, a 21-year-old student at a military academy, said that he had signed up because he was worried that he was not getting enough practical experience at school. He said he wanted to be ready for the worst.
“As a Taiwanese person,” he said, “I think we should be more serious about preparing for war.”
Image
Decades-old anti-landing barricades line the shore along a beach in Kinmen, an outlying island of Taiwan. The Chinese city of Xiamen is in the distance.
Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Seoul.
3. Taiwan: Are the US and China heading to war over the island?
Only if the PRC attacks the ROC (Taiwan). While the rhetoric may seem troubling, hopefully it will actually help call attention to the devastation such a war would cause and how war will have far worse effects than the status quo.
Taiwan: Are the US and China heading to war over the island?
By Tessa Wong
BBC News, Asia Digital Reporter
Published
1 hour ago
Share page
Image source, Reuters
Image caption,
China's defence minister has criticised the US over its recent comments on Taiwan
Weeks after the US president warned China over Taiwan, Beijing has delivered its sternest rebuttal yet, saying it would "resolutely crush any attempt" at Taiwan's independence.
On Sunday, China's Defence Minister General Wei Fenghe essentially accused the US of supporting the island's independence, saying it was "violating its promise on Taiwan" and "interfering" in China's affairs.
"Let me make this clear: if anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China, we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end. This is the only choice for China," he said at the Shangri-la Dialogue, an Asian security summit held in Singapore.
His comments follow US President Joe Biden's recent message to China that it was "flirting with danger" by flying its warplanes close to Taiwan. He vowed to protect the island militarily if it was attacked.
Taiwan, which considers itself a sovereign nation, has long been claimed by China. But Taiwan also counts the US as its biggest ally, and Washington has a law which requires it to help the island defend itself.
The escalation in rhetoric comes as China increasingly sends warplanes into Taiwan's air defence zone - flying their largest sortie of the year just last month - while the US has sent naval ships through Taiwan's waters.
So are the US and China moving towards a military conflict?
Minding the gap
One major fear is that war would be triggered if China invades Taiwan. Beijing has said in the past it could reclaim the island by force if necessary.
But most analysts say this is not likely - for now.
There has been debate over whether China has the military capability to succeed in an invasion, and Taiwan has been considerably ramping up its air and sea defences.
But many agree that Beijing recognises that such a move would be too costly and disastrous - not only for China, but also for the world.
"There's a lot of rhetoric, but the Chinese have to mind the gap very carefully if they want to launch an invasion of Taiwan, especially so close to the Ukraine crisis. The Chinese economy is far more interconnected with the global economy than Russia's is," says William Choong, senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
China's consistent position has been that it seeks "peaceful reunification" with Taiwan - something that Gen Wei reiterated on Sunday - and that it would only act if faced with a provocation.
One trigger would likely be Taiwan formally declaring independence. But this is something that its President Tsai Ing-wen has strenuously avoided, even as she insists they are already a sovereign state.
Image source, Taiwan Presidential Office
Image caption,
Taiwan's president posed with an anti-tank rocket launcher in a government handout photo that went viral recently
Similarly, the US would be reluctant to be drawn into a costly military conflict in Asia, and has signalled repeatedly that they do not want war.
US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, who also attended the Dialogue, said in his speech that the US does not support Taiwan independence, nor does it want "a new Cold War".
"Both sides are sticking to their guns on Taiwan. They need to look tough, they don't want to be seen as rolling back or stepping back," said Collin Koh, research fellow with the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
"But at the same time they are very mindful about entering an outright conflict. They're looking at each other's rhetoric with eyes wide open, and both sides are trying to temper the risk."
The fact that both Gen Wei and Mr Austin met at the sidelines of the Shangri-la Dialogue was a positive sign, as it meant that both sides wanted to show "they are still willing to sit down and talk it out, come to a consensus, and agree to disagree," said Mr Koh.
This, he said, would likely lead to more operational discussions between the two militaries that would reduce the possibility of on-the-ground miscalculations that could lead to a conflict, and an overall "reinvigoration of dialogue" that was missing during Donald Trump's administration.
Image source, EPA
Image caption,
Mr Biden's recent remarks on Taiwan were seen by some as an apparent shift in tone in US policy
That said, both China and the US are expected to continue their rhetoric for the foreseeable future.
China may even step up its "grey zone warfare" designed to exhaust Taiwan's military forces and patience - such as sending more warplanes - or disinformation campaigns, said Dr Ian Chong, a China expert with the National University of Singapore.
Taiwan has previously accused China of waging disinformation campaigns in the lead up to the island's elections, and the island will be holding important local elections at the end of the year.
For the US and China at least, "there is no political will to change their positions" for now, particularly with significant events on the horizon - the US mid-term elections in November, and China's 20th Communist Party congress in the second half of the year where President Xi Jinping is expected to further consolidate power.
"The bright side is that neither party is willing to escalate," said Dr Chong.
"But non-escalation doesn't mean we will get to a better position. So we are all stuck in this position for a while."
Media caption,
Ros Atkins on… China-Taiwan Tensions
4. The battle of Donbas could prove decisive in Ukraine war
If so, what are we doing to ensure Ukraine wins the battle/campaign?
The battle of Donbas could prove decisive in Ukraine war
Day after day, Russia is pounding the Donbas region of Ukraine with relentless artillery and air raids, making slow but steady progress to seize the industrial heartland of its neighbor.
If Russia prevails in the battle of Donbas, it will mean that Ukraine loses not only land but perhaps the bulk of its most capable military forces, opening the way for Moscow to grab more territory and dictate its terms to Kyiv. A Russian failure could lay the grounds for a Ukrainian counteroffensive — and possibly lead to political upheaval for the Kremlin.
Following botched early attempts in the invasion to capture Kyiv and the second-largest city of Kharkiv without proper planning and coordination, Russia turned its attention to the Donbas, a region of mines and factories where Moscow-backed separatists have been fighting Ukrainian forces since 2014.
Learning from its earlier missteps, Russia is treading more carefully there, relying on longer-range bombardments to soften Ukrainian defenses.
It seems to be working: The better-equipped Russian forces have made gains in both the Luhansk and Donetsk regions that make up the Donbas, controlling over 95% of the former and about half of the latter.
Ukraine is losing between 100 and 200 soldiers a day, presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak told the BBC, as Russia has “thrown pretty much everything non-nuclear at the front.” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier put the daily death toll at up to 100.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov described the combat situation as “extremely difficult,” using a reference to an ancient deity of sacrifice by saying: “The Russian Moloch has plenty of means to devour human lives to satisfy its imperial ego.”
When the war was going badly for Russia, many thought President Vladimir Putin might claim victory after some gains in Donbas and then exit a conflict that has seriously bruised the economy and stretched its resources. But the Kremlin has made clear it expects Ukraine to recognize all the gains Russia has made since the start of the invasion — something Kyiv has ruled out.
Russian forces control the entire Sea of Azov coast, including the strategic port of Mariupol, the entire Kherson region — a key gateway to Crimea — and a large chunk of the Zaporizhzhia region that could aid a further push deeper into Ukraine. Few expect that Putin will stop.
Ukrainian tanks move in Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine May 30. (Francisco Seco/AP)
On Thursday, he drew parallels between the Ukrainian conflict and the 18th century wars with Sweden waged by Peter the Great. Now, as in those czarist times, “our lot is to take back and consolidate” historic Russian lands, Putin said. Moscow has long regarded Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence.
Unlike earlier battlefield failures, Russia appears to be using more conservative tactics. Many had expected it to try to encircle Ukrainian forces with a massive pincer movement from the north and south, but instead it has used a series of smaller moves to force a retreat and not overextend its supply lines.
Keir Giles, a Russia expert at London’s Chatham House think tank, said Russia was “concentrating all of its artillery on a single section of the front line in order to grind its way forward by flattening everything in its path.”
Western officials still praise the ability of Ukrainian forces to defend their country, fighting back fiercely and similarly relying on artillery and retreating in some sections while launching frequent counterattacks.
“Ukraine has been pursuing a policy of flexible defense, giving ground where it makes sense to do so instead of holding on to every inch of the territory,” Giles said.
A senior Western official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the sensitive issue in public, said the Russian campaign “continues to be deeply troubled at all levels,” noting that Moscow’s forces are taking “weeks to achieve even modest tactical goals such as taking individual villages.”
Last month, the Russians lost nearly an entire battalion in a botched attempt to cross the Siverskyi Donets River and set up a bridgehead. Hundreds were killed and dozens of armored vehicles were destroyed.
A Ukrainian serviceman patrols a village near the frontline in the Donetsk oblast region of eastern Ukraine June 2. (Bernat Armangue/AP)
“There is a sense of strategic improvisation or muddling through,” the official said, predicting that over the summer the Russian military could reach a “point where they can no longer effectively generate offensive combat power.”
Russia has a clear edge in artillery in the battle for Donbas, thanks to a bigger number of heavy howitzers and rocket launchers and abundant ammunition. The Ukrainians have had to be economical in using their artillery, with the Russians constantly targeting their supply lines.
Ukraine has begun to receive more heavy weapons from Western allies, who have provided dozens of howitzers and are now planning to start delivering multiple rocket launchers.
Putin has warned that if the West gives Kyiv longer-range rockets that could hit Russian territory, Moscow could hit targets in Ukraine that it has spared until now. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said that Russia could respond by seizing more land as a buffer zone from such weapons.
Moscow’s earlier territorial gains in the south, including the Kherson region and a large part of the neighboring Zaporizhzhia region, have prompted Russian officials and their local appointees to ponder plans to fold those areas into Russia or declare them to be independent, like the so-called “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Ukrainian officials and Western analysts voiced concern that Moscow could try to press its offensive into the heavily populated and industrialized Dnipro region farther north, an advance that could potentially slice Ukraine in two and raise a new threat for Kyiv.
“Russian objectives in the context of this war are shifting in relation to the situation on the ground,” said Eleonora Tafuro Ambrosetti, an analyst with the Milan-based Italian Institute for International Political Studies.
A woman runs from a house that's on fire after shelling in Donetsk, within territory under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic om eastern Ukraine June 3. (Alexei Alexandroy/AP)
“Their goals are sort of flexible enough to be adaptive to context on the ground,” she said, noting that Russia could try to damage Ukraine’s economy by seizing the entire coastline to deny access to shipping.
A top Russian general already has spoken of plans to cut off Ukraine from the Black Sea by seizing the Mykolaiv and Odesa regions all the way to the border with Romania, a move that would also allow Moscow to build a land corridor to Moldova’s separatist region of Transnistria that hosts a Russian military base.
Such ambitions all hinge on Moscow’s success in the east. A defeat in the Donbas would put Kyiv in a precarious position, with new recruits lacking the skills of battle-hardened soldiers now fighting in the east, and supplies of Western weapons insufficient to fend off a potentially deeper Russian push.
Ukrainian officials brushed off such fears, voicing confidence that its military can hold out to stem the Russian advances and even launch a counterattack.
“Ukraine’s plan is clear: Kyiv is wearing the Russian army out, trying to win time for more deliveries of Western weapons, including air defense systems, in the hope of launching an efficient counteroffensive,” said analyst Mykola Sunhurovsky of the Razumkov Center, a Kyiv-based think tank.
Philip Breedlove, a retired U.S. Air Force general who was NATO’s top commander from 2013 to 2016, warned against any cease-fire that would codify Russia’s battlefield gains.
Local residents stand outside an apartment building that was damaged by shelling in the Petrovsky district of Donetsk June 5. (AP)
“This is like raising a 2-year-old,” he said. “If you allow bad behavior to stand, or worse if you reward bad behavior, you’re going to get more bad behavior.”
When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Washington’s response was inadequate, and when Moscow seized Crimea in 2014, “the West and the United States response to that was inadequate to task,” Breedlove added.
Now that Russia has come back for more, the West gets another chance to respond. “How we finish this war will decide, in my opinion, whether we are going to see more of this in the future,” he said.
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington, Yuras Karmanau in Lviv, Ukraine, Jill Lawless and Sylvia Hui in London and Frances D’Emilio in Rome contributed.
5. Airmen cleared of wrongdoing in deaths of Afghans who mobbed C-17 during Kabul evacuation
I think this is the right outcome. However, this event will haunt the aircrew for the rest of their lives. They did not do wrong but that will not ease their conscience. But I do hope those who put them in this situation reflect on how their decisions resulted in this tragedy.
Airmen cleared of wrongdoing in deaths of Afghans who mobbed C-17 during Kabul evacuation
An American C-17 crew tasked with evacuating people from Kabul last August followed the rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict when they decided to take off amid a mob of frantic Afghans on the runway, killing multiple people who clung to the transport jet, the Air Force said in a release Monday.
Video footage that went viral on social media showed people falling from the outside of the enormous Globemaster III as it began its ascent from Hamid Karzai International Airport on Aug. 16, 2021. Human remains were found in the airlifter’s wheel well once it landed at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, spurring an Office of Special Investigations inquiry into the loss of life.
The incident came days after the Taliban toppled the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan following two decades of war there, making an already fraught evacuation effort even more dire for locals who feared extremist rule.
RELATED
“OSI’s review will be thorough to ensure we obtain the facts regarding this tragic incident,” Stefanek said. “Our hearts go out to the families of the deceased.”
The C-17 had arrived with equipment to support the humanitarian airlift, but was surrounded by hundreds of Afghan civilians who had breached the airport. The jet taxied through the crowd and escaped.
Airmen used sound judgment in getting airborne as quickly as possible during the “unprecedented and rapidly deteriorating security situation,” service spokesperson Ann Stefanek said. “The aircrew’s airmanship and quick thinking ensured the safety of the crew and their aircraft.”
Upon landing at Al Udeid, Air Force investigators impounded the aircraft to collect the human remains and turned the matter over to Qatari police, who did not investigate further.
RELATED
The U.S. Air Force is pivoting from orchestrating the massive exodus of over 124,000 Afghans and Americans from a country once again under Taliban rule, to a quieter role helping even more people leave on commercial and privately organized flights.
Legal personnel from Air Mobility Command and U.S. Central Command, as well as the aircrew’s leadership, agreed with OSI’s conclusion that no wrongdoing occurred.
Airmen have returned to flight after seeking help to cope with the residual trauma from that day, Stefanek said. In all, Air Force crews evacuated more than 124,000 Afghans and Americans during one of the largest efforts to relocate noncombatants from a war zone in U.S. history.
“This was a tragic event and our hearts go out to the families of the deceased,” Stefanek said.
Rachel Cohen joined Air Force Times as senior reporter in March 2021. Her work has appeared in Air Force Magazine, Inside Defense, Inside Health Policy, the Frederick News-Post (Md.), the Washington Post, and others.
6. US Army to double cyber corps strength as focus shifts from counterinsurgency
But we need to conduct cyber counterinsurgency. Insurgencies abound on the internet. (said with only slight tongue in cheek).
US Army to double cyber corps strength as focus shifts from counterinsurgency
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army will double the size of its active-duty cyber forces by the end of the decade as the Pentagon shifts its focus from counterinsurgency and prepares for future fights with technologically savvy opponents, officials said.
Growth in Cyber Mission Force teams and electronic warfare companies and platoons will boost the strength of the cyber corps from around 3,000 personnel to “just over” 6,000, an Army spokesperson said June 13. Across active duty, reserves and National Guard, the cyber branch will expand to more than 7,000 people, up from 5,000.
“You will continue to see the growth of our cyber branch, as we proliferate cyber-electromagnetic activities, capabilities,” Army Lt. Gen. John Morrison, deputy chief of staff, G-6, said in a discussion with reporters June 9. “Think cyber and electronic warfare, integrated together, throughout all of our tactical formations.”
Morrison is the principal military adviser to the service’s chief of staff, in charge of planning and implementing command, control, communications, cyber operations and networks for Army operations worldwide.
The expected growth comes as the Army grapples with multi-domain operations, across land, air, sea, space and cyber, and gleans valuable adversary information from the bloody battles in Ukraine.
The U.S. reinforced networks in Eastern Europe, both before and after Russia’s invasion, and recently began training Ukrainian troops on Western electronic jamming gear.
“Quite frankly, over the course of the 20 years of conflict, fighting a counterinsurgency, we had divested a significant amount of our electronic warfare capabilities, everything from sensing the environment to electronic protection, and certainly on the electronic attack component of it,” Morrison said. “All you have to do is read open-source news, and you can see that it is a critical component of what is happening over in Europe right now.”
The Army requested $16.6 billion in cyber and IT funding for fiscal 2023. The bulk, roughly $9.8 billion, is flagged for the Army network, a modernization priority spearheaded by the Network Cross-Functional Team and the Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications-Tactical. Some $2 billion is devoted to offensive and defensive cyber operations and cybersecurity research and development.
The service’s overall $178 billion budget blueprint also supports a third multi-domain task force, a flexible, theater-specific unit capable of executing cyber and electronic assignments. Five task forces are ultimately expected.
China is considered the most pressing international threat, ahead of Russia, according to a public summary of the classified 2022 National Defense Strategy. Both powers have invested heavily in cyberspace.
Army CIO Raj Iyer on Thursday told reporters that 2023 is a “year of inflection” when it comes to digital transformation, a time when the service must move past old and comfortable and into new and advantageous.
“We need to make sure that the investments that we have are appropriately aligned to the Army’s priorities,” he said, “and to the DoD’s priorities, quite honestly, through the release of the national defense strategy.”
Colin Demarest is a reporter at C4ISRNET, where he covers military networks, cyber and IT. Colin previously covered the Department of Energy and its NNSA — namely Cold War cleanup and nuclear weapons development — for a daily newspaper in South Carolina. Colin is also an award-winning photographer.
7. Army secretary on combating military sexual assault: "Every leader at every level is focused on this"
We must end this scourge.
Army secretary on combating military sexual assault: "Every leader at every level is focused on this"
Army Secretary Christine Wormuth acknowledged the military branch is still working to combat sexual assault and harassment within its ranks, but said she hopes her legacy is reducing such behaviors.
"We've got a problem in our country. I know we've still got it in our Army," Wormuth told "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell in a recent interview. "Every leader at every level is focused on this, cares about it and takes the problem seriously."
A new study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found "reports of sexual harassment and assault in the Army continue to rise." Soldiers reported about 1,000 sexual harassment incidents and 2,500 assaults in fiscal year 2020, according to the report, which noted that "many additional incidents" were not reported.
Wormuth told O'Donnell "we really want people to report when they've been sexually harassed. And we put a lot of emphasis on that." That's why she plans to sign a new "safe to report" policy next month, which would protect survivors from being disciplined for minor misconduct like underage drinking.
Part of the solution is teaching young soldiers acceptable behavior, Wormuth said.
"A lot of it, I think, is training our soldiers, many of whom are just 18 or 19 years old, about what's acceptable and what's not acceptable," she said. "But when they come into our Army, we need to be very clear about what's OK and what's not OK."
A year ago, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recommended that decisions to prosecute cases of sexual assault be taken out of the chain of command amid increasing pressure from Congress to overhaul how sexual misconduct crimes are handled in the military. In December, Congress passed significant military justice reform that did so, which could help ease victims' fears of retaliation and lead more to report it.
"I think there has been that fear," Wormuth said. "And I still hear about that when I go and visit Army posts. We are, I believe, making real strides to show our soldiers that they can trust the chain of command to look out for them."
O'Donnell noted that her reporting over the years on sexual assault and harassment in the military has shown that it's a national security issue — "we need more women in the U.S. military," she told Wormuth.
"We will be stronger as an Army if we have more female leaders," Wormuth said. "I have watched our military leaders go in front of Congress ten years ago and say, 'We're gonna fix this problem. We're gonna fix this problem.' So I know there's a credibility gap there. But we are working on it every single day."
Wormuth, the first woman and mother to hold the role of secretary of the Army, is also focused on improving the quality of life for the Army's 400,000 service members who are parents. She said she wants "to make it easier to be a parent in the U.S. Army."
"We did just put out a new policy that makes some changes in this area," she said. "So, for example, in the very sad case of a lost pregnancy, we now provide leave for both men and women when there's been a miscarriage. We've done simple things, frankly, by just allowing women who've given birth to have up to 12 months before they take their physical fitness test. Simple things that make complete sense and are really important in terms of retaining the great soldiers that we have."
8. China’s Crisis of Confidence
I really like this conclusion and hope it comes to pass. If I were assisting in s strategic influence campaign this would be incorporated into the themes and messages.
In the end though, China’s sustained economic cooldown and Xi’s crisis of confidence will result in the very outcome he, the CCP, and Chinese nationalists feared most: broad recognition that China may be incapable of competing with the United States at all.
China’s Crisis of Confidence
What if, instead of being a competitor, China can no longer afford to compete at all?
By Craig Singleton, a senior China fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former U.S. diplomat.
Empty streets in Beijing
A man crosses an empty street in Beijing’s central business district after the government recommended people work from home to prevent the spread of COVID-19, on May 5. Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
What if the new era of great-power competition was over before it had even begun? Many of today’s fears about a multigeneration conflict with Beijing rest on linear extrapolations of yesteryear’s data, harkening back to a time when China appeared on track to supplant the United States as the world’s largest economy. Yet more and more signs point to a China that is fully unprepared for the competition with the United States it once sought.
China’s economy, long in decline, is now in freefall—thanks to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s mismanagement. Case in point: This year, the U.S. economy is forecast to grow faster than China’s for the first time since 1976, with strong indications that China has entered a prolonged era of slow growth. More surprising is that Xi, in an attempt to stabilize China’s finances, has largely abandoned his ambitious plans to overhaul China’s growth model, choosing instead to double down on the very economic policies that got China into today’s economic bind in the first place.
Put differently, Xi blinked.
What if the new era of great-power competition was over before it had even begun? Many of today’s fears about a multigeneration conflict with Beijing rest on linear extrapolations of yesteryear’s data, harkening back to a time when China appeared on track to supplant the United States as the world’s largest economy. Yet more and more signs point to a China that is fully unprepared for the competition with the United States it once sought.
China’s economy, long in decline, is now in freefall—thanks to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s mismanagement. Case in point: This year, the U.S. economy is forecast to grow faster than China’s for the first time since 1976, with strong indications that China has entered a prolonged era of slow growth. More surprising is that Xi, in an attempt to stabilize China’s finances, has largely abandoned his ambitious plans to overhaul China’s growth model, choosing instead to double down on the very economic policies that got China into today’s economic bind in the first place.
Put differently, Xi blinked.
Xi’s reversal speaks volumes. It suggests he lacks confidence in his own plan to transform China’s unsustainable economic model into one that can deliver on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) promise of “high quality” growth. More important is that China’s fizzling economic miracle may soon undercut the CCP’s ability to wage a sustained struggle for geostrategic dominance.
This raises a tantalizing question: What if, instead of being a competitor, China cannot actually afford to compete at all?
In a contested resource environment, tensions will almost certainly emerge between China’s army, navy, and domestic security apparatus.
Xi is often said to have tapped into Chinese resentment over its colonial-era humiliations to kick-start its modern-day competition with the United States. But the decision to jettison China’s policy of hiding its capabilities and biding its time began much earlier. Indeed, for decades before Xi’s ascent into power, CCP elites made clear this dictum would be discarded as soon as the international balance of power shifted in China’s favor. When Washington looked to be terminally weakened by the 2008 financial crisis, Chinese officials made their move, betting that overseas investments and economic coercion were the keys to outcompeting the West. They were mostly right.
China’s economic clout, beyond any other consideration, still serves as the foundation for the country’s vast influence. The gravitational pull of China’s market, along with Beijing’s ability to influence economic conditions and shape political perceptions in other countries, enabled China to bind itself to the world. The fruits of China’s economic expansion also underwrote its power projection, covering the costs of the Belt and Road Initiative, military modernization, and expanding multilateral commitments. China’s GDP growth paid domestic dividends for the CCP too, empowering a model of state capitalism that broke down the barriers between the private sector and government institutions to mobilize the former in service of the latter.
Nevertheless, China’s meteoric rise, fueled by annual GDP growth above 6 percent, appears over. Yes, China’s economy has been cooling for years, plagued by systematic deficiencies like chronic overinvestment, massive debt loads, and a shrinking workforce, which has put enormous stresses on China’s finances. But these systematic trends have been exacerbated, perhaps irreversibly, by China’s disastrous pandemic response, where the lack of an effective domestic vaccine and the CCP’s unwillingness to approve and purchase Western ones have made rolling lockdowns a permanent way of life. So far, the CCP’s containment measures have resulted in plummeting industrial output, surging unemployment, capital flight, and a sinking currency.
Efforts to stabilize the Chinese economy will be further strained by a deteriorating external environment, with the World Bank warning of 1970s-style stagflation and reduced global demand for Chinese exports—until now, the engine of China’s growth. The economy remains severely dependent on vast supplies of imported fuel, grain, and other commodities whose prices have massively surged. Western technology transfer restrictions are also taking their toll. Another challenge is growing frustration in China’s largest markets—the United States and the European Union—over Xi’s support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Already, large multinational companies like Apple are shifting supply chains to Southeast Asia and other regions perceived as more stable while expatriates are abandoning the country and newly minted college graduates flee in droves. Indeed, China’s brain drain has begun.
So far, Xi has offered few new ideas for remedying China’s crisis, even as his subordinates warn about the need to “act decisively” to avoid financial ruin. Xi’s big bet consists of an “all-out” infrastructure push to boost the economy—the same approach that fueled China’s current debt bubble, massive industrial overcapacity, and the creation of entire ghost cities of half-finished apartments. But such investments are unlikely to stimulate China’s economy, not least because they are focused on propping up the least productive parts of China’s economy, including the state sector. Making matters worse, Xi has offered little relief for Chinese consumers, the linchpin in his effort to drum up domestic consumption, decrease inequality, and reduce the economy’s reliance on exports and unproductive investments. Consumers were integral to China’s pandemic rebound in 2021 but now face growing fears about job security and sustained income losses from never-ending lockdowns.
At the same time, one by one, Xi’s signature economic initiatives have disappeared from the front pages of China’s state-owned newspapers. That includes Xi’s push for “common prosperity,” which ostensibly aimed to reduce extreme inequality by giving ordinary Chinese a greater share of the nation’s wealth. Plans to introduce a property tax to slow down China’s notorious real estate bubble—where the elite have amassed vast fortunes—have also been shelved. Chinese regulators have also signaled an end to Xi’s crackdown on China’s tech giants, whose growing influence has long been viewed as a growing threat to the CCP’s power. Nevertheless, foreign investors, who lost billions of dollars on Chinese tech stocks tanked by Xi’s policies, remain wary. With many Western banks warning that the regulatory risks of investing in China now outweigh the potential benefits, these investors may not come to Beijing’s rescue either.
Mere months before Xi’s coronation to a third term as party secretary, CCP officials whose jobs it is to worry about economic growth, like Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, are now openly pitted against Xi and those more concerned with regime security and party control, such as Chinese Vice Premiers Han Zheng and Hu Chunhua. While Xi projects calm and warns citizens not to question his zero-COVID policies, Li refuses to endorse them and instead speaks of China’s “complicated and grave” situation. This fractured policy environment, where ideological and technocratic factions battle for influence, is eerily reminiscent of late Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s era. Just as it did then, today’s intraparty clash will produce winners and losers. For now, the latter group includes Xi, who will probably be forced to make key personnel concessions during this fall’s 20th National Party Congress to secure the support needed to guarantee a third term. For the remainder of 2022, China’s worsening domestic challenges will remain the party’s highest priority, and addressing them will take up an increasing share of China’s economic resources. The upshot is that U.S.-China tensions will likely remain subdued, at least for the short-to-medium term.
China’s state-owned enterprises, provincial and local governments, private companies, and citizens will be forced to compete for a piece of a pie that is no longer growing.
More difficult to predict, however, is how China’s fight for resources and power will affect the country’s various domestic stakeholders. For the first time in a while, China’s state-owned enterprises, provincial and local governments, private companies, and citizens will be forced to compete for a piece of a pie that is no longer growing. As a result, funding trade-offs will be necessary, including those considered inconceivable when China’s annual growth hovers around 10 percent. That will include cuts to current and planned investments in China’s power projection capabilities, both civilian and military.
Outbound Chinese development loans, a key tool for Beijing to expand relations across Asia and Africa, have already dropped 96 percent in recent years, from $75 billion in 2016 to approximately $4 billion during the pandemic. The overall average value of Belt and Road Initiative-related projects, averaging $255 billion annually between 2010 and 2019, also cratered to less than $81 billion in 2020. Although these figures may recover slightly, Chinese policymakers will be hard pressed to justify such expenditures as China’s economy falters.
Similar trade-offs will also be necessary for certain aspects of China’s defense spending. In a contested resource environment, tensions will almost certainly emerge between China’s army, navy, and domestic security apparatus. The same goes for civil-military relations because local officials are often expected to provide the military with the materiel and support required for training and large-scale exercises. Overtime, China’s economic slowdown could also lead to civil unrest, which could force the military to become more involved in maintaining domestic security at the expense of its broader modernization. Potential economic constraints could also impede plans to fully fund newly announced ventures, such as China’s space force. Over the long term, China could be forced to choose among certain core missions, such as monitoring China’s coast, building up its South China Sea outposts, maintaining its air defense identification zone, and even protecting its unruly borders. Either way, China’s military will be forced to do more with less.
In the end though, China’s sustained economic cooldown and Xi’s crisis of confidence will result in the very outcome he, the CCP, and Chinese nationalists feared most: broad recognition that China may be incapable of competing with the United States at all.
Craig Singleton is a senior China fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former U.S. diplomat. Twitter: @CraigMSingleton
9. What Erdoğan Has Wrought?
Excerpt:
In short order, European leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel emerged who were much less sympathetic to Turkey, and Turks have long since written off the EU accession process as Erdoğan’s increasing authoritarianism has taken Turkey farther and farther away from European standards of democracy and rule of law. But even without an active EU accession process, alienating traditional supporters in Europe is foolish and short-sighted by any standard. The anger and hostility this has engendered in Northern Europe (and not just in Sweden and Finland) is palpable and will not be forgotten for a long time. Moreover, Erdogan’s insistence on using the Nordic candidacies for bargaining purposes will reinforce every existing bad stereotype that regards Turks not as Europeans but as Middle Easterners more interested in haggling in the souk than in policy outcomes. It is a high bill to pay for the autocrat’s several minutes in the sun at Madrid and his pathetic efforts to demonstrate his relevance and importance to Turkish voters in the run-up to elections in 2023 at the expense of Europe’s larger security needs as it faces the biggest war on the continent since 1945.
What Erdoğan Has Wrought?
Seeking concessions to support Finland and Sweden joining NATO has done damage to Turkey’s standing in Europe and its long-term security interests.
Jun 13
(Photo by Adem Altan/AFP/Getty Images.)
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has continued to hold Finland and Sweden’s potential membership in NATO hostage to his stated demands. He wants concessions from the two aspirants on issues connected to Kurdish terrorism and has an unstated agenda of distracting Turks from his catastrophic economic mismanagement, pleasing his Russian “competimate” Vladimir Putin, and making himself the center of attention at the forthcoming Madrid Summit of the North Atlantic alliance later this month, as well as greasing the skids for the potential sale of advanced U.S. F-16 aircraft to Turkey.
In the wake of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, moving swiftly to incorporate Finland and Sweden into NATO is imperative for the geopolitical and military benefits it brings to European security. It is almost certain that a reluctant President Joe Biden will have to get involved, and it is equally likely that, at the end of the day, Erdoğan’s objections will be assuaged and the NATO enlargement process will move forward. But the damage that Erdoğan has done to Turkey’s standing in Europe and its long-term geopolitical interests (as opposed to his short-term domestic political interests) will be profound.
The damage is thrown into sharp relief by a recent domestic political crisis in Sweden and an extraordinary interview granted by Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö, one of Europe’s few statesmen of any vision or stature. The combination of the two demonstrate both the bad faith of Erdoğan, the unintended consequences of his recent hostage-taking diplomacy, and the potentially long-lasting aftereffects of the Turkish strongman’s strong arm diplomatic tactics.
Sweden’s path to NATO candidacy was not as direct as Finland’s, where the debate on NATO membership had been much more advanced for years. Moreover, the political situation in Sweden was more fraught since the Social Democratic government had a very narrow margin in the parliament, the country is facing elections in the fall, and the broad political consensus that existed in Finland was not in place—in fact the governing Social Democratic Party was divided over NATO membership. The Finns coordinated very carefully with the Swedes after the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, mindful that while public opinion had rapidly and radically transformed in Finland, the change in Sweden, also profound, was not on the same order of magnitude.
The recent Swedish government crisis had almost nothing to do with Turkey’s demands on NATO accession, but rather originated in efforts by opposition parties to force a vote of no-confidence on the minister of justice and interior because of rising gang violence in Sweden. The no-confidence motion fell one vote short and that vote was Left Party member Amineh Kakabaveh, a Swede of Kurdish origin, whose support keeps the Social Democratic government in office. The price she has extracted for her vote in this instance, however, was a commitment that the Swedish government would not cave in to Erdoğan’s demands that Stockholm turn over various Kurds that Turkey has accused of terrorism. Some observers are already suggesting that this episode comes close to “derailing” Finland and Sweden’s applications for the moment. Although that judgment seems premature, the entire episode demonstrates that Erdoğan’s extortionate diplomacy could lead him to miscalculate in ways that lead to a train wreck at the NATO summit.
Which brings us to President Niinistö’s interview in Ilta-Sanomat. Niinistö walks through in detail the extensive consultations undertaken by the always careful and thorough Finns as well as the more tentative Swedes before announcing their application for NATO membership. He specifies that the contacts went beyond the April 4 phone call between Niinistö and Erdoğan that had previously been reported and included exchanges between the foreign ministers and at lower levels of the ministries as well. The assurances of Turkish support for a Nordic round of enlargement were repeated in Brussels to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Niinistö made clear that although Finland is willing to address Turkish concerns about terrorism (and indeed pointed to the fact that Finnish anti-terrorism legislation is consistent with European standards) and even the arms embargo (although not as a “condition” for membership), extradition of individuals will have to be dealt with through normal legal channels (the same position that the U.S. has taken with regard to Turkish demands for the extradition of cleric Fetullah Gulen for allegedly plotting the July 2016 coup attempt in Turkey). Despite his typically laconic manner of expression, Niinistö’s anger at Turkish duplicity drips through the interview noting that had the Turks indicated they would raise an objection, Finland and Sweden wouldn’t have applied since being in a security limbo is the worst possible position for them.
The irony in all of this is that Finland and Sweden have been for the past 25 years among Turkey’s strongest advocates and supporters in Europe. In the late 1990s President William Jefferson Clinton nominated me to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Finland. When I arrived in the summer of 1998 I found my Finnish diplomatic colleagues at the Foreign Ministry and in the office of the president and prime minister (who both have responsibilities for the conduct of Finland’s foreign relations) hard at work preparing to assume the rotating presidency of the European Union which they had only recently joined in 1995 The extremely thorough, hardworking, and talented Finnish diplomatic leaders had concluded from their studies of past EU presidencies that an unexpected issue would always crop up during the presidency and dominate it. Although they recognized that it was impossible to predict just what that issue might be, they decided that the possibility of renewed crisis or negotiations over Cyprus might be such an issue and set to work preparing themselves to handle it if it emerged as an issue during their presidency. This entailed lots of diplomatic contact with Greece and Turkey, needless to say.
As the Finns settled into their first EU presidency, however, what greeted them was not geopolitical tremors but real, no-shit earthquakes of significant magnitude in first Turkey and then Greece in the late summer of 1999. The geological phenomena led in short order to massive efforts at humanitarian relief in the Eastern Mediterranean that brought, in its wake, a rapid and unexpected improvement in the Greek-Turkish relationship. The Finns’ hard work and anticipatory diplomacy put them in an excellent position to capitalize on this. Although there was no Cyprus crisis for them to resolve, they suddenly found themselves in a position to put the question of Turkish accession to the European Union on the agenda at the December 1999 Helsinki EU Summit.
EU membership had been a longstanding goal of Turkish statecraft dating back to the initial application by Turkey in 1959 for associate membership in what was then called the European Economic Community. Anchoring Turkey in the economic structures of Europe to complement its important role as a NATO ally had also been a key bipartisan objective of U.S. European policy through the administrations of nine different U.S. presidents, from Eisenhower to Clinton. Hence, I was actively involved, as U.S. ambassador, on the margins of the EU Summit that December in helping the Finns work out a formula acceptable to the Turks. Despite intensive efforts with my then colleagues in Ankara, Ambassador Mark Parris and his deputy, Jim Jeffrey, it ultimately took a phone call from Air Force One by President Clinton to the then-Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit to get the Turks to take yes for an answer to something that they had been seeking for 40 years—the prospect of opening accession talks to join Europe. Finland’s early preparation and assiduous efforts paid off and Turkey’s potential candidacy was now clearly on the EU agenda.
Five years later I found myself in Ankara as George W. Bush’s ambassador to the Republic of Turkey when the EU faced the decision of whether to actually open accession talks with Turkey on all of the chapters of the Acquis Communitaire—the steps that Turkey would need to take to adapt its economic, social and political institutions to enable it to actually undertake the responsibilities of membership in the EU.
The Finns had remained strong supporters of Turkish candidacy. Former Finnish President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Marti Ahtisaari became chairman of an independent commission on Turkey (supported by funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation) that lobbied for Turkey’s candidacy before the December 2004 Brussels EU Summit. Sweden also had emerged as a key supporter. My Swedish counterpart in Ankara, Ann Dismorr, was a particularly active advocate and sympathetically described Turkey’s reform efforts in her 2005 book Turkey Decoded. Working with her, British Ambassador Peter Westmacott (later Her Majesty’s Ambassador to France and the U.S.) as well as other American colleagues, we pushed for the EU to open the process to Turkey. At the end the invitation was offered—albeit with some caveats that were hard for Turkey to swallow. Once again Western leaders—in this case, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac—had to cajole Erdoğan for hours into taking yes for an answer. It should have been a moment of triumph for Turkey, but Erdoğan’s reaction betrayed at best ambivalent feelings about the prospect of firmly grounding Turkey in European institutions.
In short order, European leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel emerged who were much less sympathetic to Turkey, and Turks have long since written off the EU accession process as Erdoğan’s increasing authoritarianism has taken Turkey farther and farther away from European standards of democracy and rule of law. But even without an active EU accession process, alienating traditional supporters in Europe is foolish and short-sighted by any standard. The anger and hostility this has engendered in Northern Europe (and not just in Sweden and Finland) is palpable and will not be forgotten for a long time. Moreover, Erdogan’s insistence on using the Nordic candidacies for bargaining purposes will reinforce every existing bad stereotype that regards Turks not as Europeans but as Middle Easterners more interested in haggling in the souk than in policy outcomes. It is a high bill to pay for the autocrat’s several minutes in the sun at Madrid and his pathetic efforts to demonstrate his relevance and importance to Turkish voters in the run-up to elections in 2023 at the expense of Europe’s larger security needs as it faces the biggest war on the continent since 1945.
10. US Defense Secretary Austin meets Thai leader to boost ties
US Defense Secretary Austin meets Thai leader to boost ties
BANGKOK — U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met with Thailand’s prime minister on Monday as part of an effort to strengthen what Austin says is Washington’s “unparalleled network of alliances and partnerships” in the region.
Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, who is also defense minister, also met Austin last month in Washington. Thailand and the United States are longtime military allies, despite a cooling of relations after the 2014 military coup that brought former army commander Prayuth to power. Monday’s visit was Austin’s first to Thailand as defense secretary.
A U.S. Defense Department statement issued after the meeting said Austin and Prayuth “shared perspectives on regional security issues, and discussed opportunities to strengthen the U.S.-Thai alliance.”
It said Austin declared Washington’s interest in strengthening “interoperability between the U.S. and Thai forces and to support Thailand’s modernization requirements.”
The two men also discussed prioritizing cooperation in emerging technical areas, such as the cyber and space technology sectors, as well as Thailand’s desire for “enhanced defense industry cooperation,” the statement said.
Thai media had reported that Prayuth would likely discuss arms procurement with Austin, including of F-35 fighter aircraft, but Austin did not comment specifically on that in remarks to the media.
Tensions between the U.S. and China have been growing in part over Beijing’s claims to Taiwan and much of the South China Sea, and its increasing power and influence in the region.
RELATED
"Do rules matter? Does sovereignty matter? Does the system that we have built together matter?" the Pentagon chief asked the audience at the Shangri-La Dialogue.
In a speech Saturday at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore, Austin said China’s “steady increase in provocative and destabilizing military activity near Taiwan” threatens to undermine the region’s security and prosperity.
He said he was proud that Washington’s “unparalleled network of alliances and partnerships has only deepened” in the past year.
China’s defense minister, Gen. Wei Fenghe, said at the same conference that the U.S. is trying to turn Southeast Asian countries against Beijing and is seeking to advance its own interests “under the guise of multilateralism.”
China over the past decade has been trying to extend its influence in Southeast Asia, both through aid and investment, including its “Belt and Road” infrastructure projects and use of its navy and other maritime resources to press its claims to vast areas of the South China Sea.
“America never ... shies away from honest competition, but we don’t seek conflict, nor do we seek a region that’s split into hostile blocks,” he said, according to a defense department transcript of his remarks. “It was an important opportunity to raise our concerns about the potential for instability in the Taiwan Strait and to underscore our ... long-standing policy toward Taiwan as unwavering and unchanged.”
Thailand and the United States were close allies during the Vietnam War, and in 2003, Washington designated Thailand a major non-NATO ally, one of about 20 worldwide.
Such status means the U.S. regards Thailand as a strategic partner, and facilitates some aspects of military assistance and cooperation. The annual multinational Cobra Gold military exercise, one of the world’s biggest, is hosted in Thailand in partnership with the United States.
11. Austin Impressed by Partnership and Professionalism Exhibited by U.S. Unit in Thailand
JUSMAGTHAI, like many of the similar security assistance organizations at US embassies around the world, are often overlooked despite often punching well above their weight and making strategic contributions to national security. JUSMAGTHAI has a long and storied history and it is good to see the SECDEF recognize its contributions.
We need to place more emphasis on these organizations as Military Assistance and Advisory Groups. We should look to the work of retired Colonel Robert Killebrew on how to better operationalize and resource these organizations around the world
See these from COL Killebrew:
Austin Impressed by Partnership and Professionalism Exhibited by U.S. Unit in Thailand
The U.S. military effort in Thailand is truly a joint endeavor and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III had the opportunity to see it as he met with soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group – Thailand today.
Austin Visit
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III visits service members stationed in Bangkok, June 13, 2022.
SHARE IMAGE:
Photo By: Chad McNeeley, DOD
VIRIN: 220613-D-TT977-0154
The group – established in 1953 – works on a Royal Thai military compound in Bangkok. The service members also traverse the country working with Thai allies on everything from tactics and training to medicine and maintenance.
Austin met doctors, Marine security guards and airmen and soldiers working on training exercises.
"Thank you for what you do, representing the United States," the secretary said. "From this vantage point, this is a beautiful site, because it's, it's a wonderful display of jointness and professionalism. It's exactly what the United States military is all about."
Austin Meeting
Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III meets with service members stationed in Bangkok, June 13, 2022.
SHARE IMAGE:
Photo By: Chad McNeeley, DOD
VIRIN: 220613-D-TT977-0240
Austin made the point that almost everything in the U.S. military is done by a joint team. "And jointness, as you know, is a thing that you can't just wave a magic wand and make happen at the 11th hour, when you need it. You got to live that way each and every day," he said. "So learn about each other. Learn about how you complement each other's efforts, and what part your service plays in the overall picture."
Austin asked if there were any Space Force Guardians in Thailand, and when he found there weren't he said "gotta fix that."
But it is not just the joint part of the unit that he focused on. He also spoke about the Thailand part. "In many cases, because of what you do, you come in contact with a range of people from this country and from other countries," he said. "You are what shapes their opinion of the United States of America. It's been my experience, that you are some of the best ambassadors of our country. People learn about America, through your eyes, through their experiences with you. And I hope that you never forget that."
Austin Visit
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III visits service members stationed in Bangkok, June 13, 2022.
SHARE IMAGE:
Photo By: Chad McNeeley, DOD
VIRIN: 220613-D-TT977-0132A
Austin thanked the Thai hosts of the unit. "They're accommodating our needs and facilitating interoperability with them," he said. "We're grateful for that. By the same token, we bring a lot to the table to help them as well. Again, just like it's important for us to work together as for the various services, it's absolutely important that we work together with our allies here, so that we are interoperable. Again, that's another thing that you can't wait until the last minute, the 11th hour and expect to be successful."
During a conversation with the media traveling with him later in the day, Austin brought up the men and women of the unit again. "It's really impressive to see the display of jointness here," he said. "Army, air force, navy, Marines working together in a seamless fashion to represent the United States of America and help create capability for our partners here. So, our youngsters remain focused on the task at hand and they are serving the American people very, very well."
12. Geospatial Support for Atrocity Accountability Act
Organizations like the US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea have been using satellite imagery to document human rights atrocities in north Korea for decades.
Geospatial Support for Atrocity Accountability Act
The world has witnessed the horrifying civilian atrocities Russia has committed against Ukraine, and leaders across the West have rightfully called for Putin and his military leaders to be held accountable for their heinous war crimes. Ukrainian civilians’ tragic suffering reminds us of the horrors of war and the catastrophic consequences of Russia’s blatant disregard for civilian life, and the laws of armed conflict under the 1949 Geneva Convention. The United States has the capability and capacity to bring these heinous, ongoing acts in Ukraine—and other atrocities—to the center of the world’s attention.
My current Congressional Defense Fellow, Sergeant Major Andrew Brown, previously served with the Defense Attaché Service in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). During that time, he worked with members of a missing persons working group that included representatives from the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP), Bosnian missing persons agencies, various Bosnian police agencies, and prosecutor’s offices to locate clandestine mass grave locations. With approximately 8,000 persons still missing from the 1992 – 1995 Bosnian War, the group identified the need for greater sharing of intelligence and mass grave location data. Sergeant Major Brown’s task was to corroborate location data with archived geospatial imagery analysis and uncover additional gravesites.
However, challenges of distrust between organizations and the lack of central authority or leadership from the BiH government had to be overcome to secure accurate mass grave data. Determined to bring closure to the many Bosnian families, Sergeant Major Brown and a group of dedicated geospatial analysts worked tirelessly to attain the imagery needed to unearth the missing and provide evidence of war crimes. Eventually, there were breakthroughs.
Thanks to successive hits from archive imagery, the team utilized unclassified commercial imagery with the outline of potential mass graves and confirmed the size and dimensions of the largest post-World War II mass grave in Europe. The joint effort was a resounding success and demonstrated that archived, classified imagery and recent commercial geospatial imagery could successfully assist in decades-old human rights and war crimes investigations.
There were numerous other examples where geospatial imagery led to excavations of. Forensic evidence, which was included at the trial and conviction of Radko Mladić at ICTY in 2015 on multiple charges, including genocide. Also, in 2016, imagery located another grave in Kozluk, from which forensic evidence assisted in the successful genocide conviction of Srećko Aćimović in 2020.
Protecting human rights and preventing war crimes has been foundational to the United States’ foreign policy, and our government agencies already maintain offices to prevent mass atrocities and genocide. However, there is more to do to strengthen these offices’ ability to execute their missions. The State Department’s Atrocity Warning Task Force (AW-TF), in particular, can benefit from the fusion and analysis of geospatial intelligence from the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community. This should not be difficult to deliver. We must build upon the efforts provided by the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, break down the silos of intelligence across the government, and enable the Secretary of State to receive and provide the AW-TF with the latest geospatial intelligence that may provide evidence of war crimes and mass graves.
I recently introduced the Geospatial Support for Atrocity Accountability Act to enable the State Department to obtain geospatial imagery and share it with international partners like the ICMP, international courts and tribunals, and local civil society to locate the missing and, similar to Bosnia, provide the evidence to tribunals and bring perpetrators to justice.
As the world searches for the tools to help the people of Ukraine, the United States has an opportunity to act. We can leverage U.S. technological advantages and near-global coverage of satellites and aerial platforms to document crimes and send a message to perpetrators that we are watching and will hold them accountable. War criminals like Vladimir Putin should look to those who came before them, like Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić, to understand their crimes will not be forgotten and that justice will prevail.
Rep. Elise Stefanik represents New York's 21st District in the House of Representatives. She is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
13. China 'will fight to the very end' over Taiwan: Chinese defense minister
Does that include his very end? Easy for him to say when he is talking about spilling the blood of others.
"A soldier is he whose blood makes the glory of the general."
--Adapted from Henry G. Bohn--
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Bertrand Russell
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
Georges Clemenceau
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
Jean-Paul Sartre
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
Jeannette Rankin
China 'will fight to the very end' over Taiwan: Chinese defense minister - Breaking Defense
Gen. Wei Fenghe described the US Indo-Pacific strategy as "an attempt to build an exclusive small group in the name of a free and open Indo-Pacific." It is designed "to create conflict and confrontation, to contain and encircle others."
Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe speaking at Shangri-La Dialogue 2022. (Photo by IISS)
SINGAPORE: In a much anticipated keynote at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Chinese defense minister Gen. Wei Fenghe warned that China “will fight to the very end” if “anyone dares to secede” from China, a not-so-veiled shot at Taiwan.
“We will fight at all costs. And we will fight to the very end. This is the only choice for China,” Wei said. Taiwan, of course, is claimed by China as a runaway province.
But while laying down that threat, Wei also used a rare public speech to then try and paint China as an innocent player in the region, constantly at threat from an US Indo-Pacific strategy that is “an attempt to build an exclusive small group in the name of a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
Washington’s goal, he claimed, is to “to target one specific country. It is a strategy to create conflict and confrontation to contain and encircle others. China holds that for any strategy to be valuable it should adapt to the historic and global trends and contribute to regional peace, stability, and the shared interests of all. Considered we should uphold the rule of law and oppose acting on one’s own, the order of of human civilization must be based on the rule of law. Otherwise, the law of jungle will prevail.”
The Chinese official also offered the view that regional “solidarity and cooperation can keep us on the right path,” battling “hegemony.” (While Wei’s comments were made in Mandarin, a government-approved translator provided English remarks.)
“Countries, big or small, are all equal. We should respect each other and treat each other as equals and reject a zero-sum game in which the winner takes all. We should seek peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, rather than hegemony and power politics,” Wei said. “Politics, global affairs should be handled through consultation by all stakeholders, instead of being dictated by just one country or small group of countries. No one and no one country should impose its will on others or bully others under the guise of multilateralism.” He also argued that “China respects freedom of navigation enjoyed by all countries under international law.”
Wei’s presentation of events in the South China Sea, most of which China lays claim to, was met with expected skepticism in the audience of several hundred defense officials and observers from around the Indo-Pacific region. The idea that Beijing would never act to bully smaller countries in the region left several attendees chuckling when they discussed it afterwards. Wei’s speech, after all, ignored China’s destruction of coral reefs throughout the South China Sea to build military bases, China’s blockade of six Philippine reefs by its naval militia and navy in March last year or the standoff between Indonesian and Chinese naval ships at the Natuna Islands. He also did not mention China’s battles with Indian troops at the Line of Control in the Himalayas.
Throughout the speech, Wei returned time and again to the idea that the US is trying to force its will upon the region.
“Actually freedom of navigation is not under threat in the South China Sea,” he said. “However, some big power has long practiced navigation hegemony on the pretext of freedom of navigation. It has flexed its muscles by sending warships and warplanes on a rampage in the South China Sea as neighbors that cannot be moved away from each other. We countries in this region must stay vigilant and prevent some countries outside this region from meddling in the affairs of our region and turning the South China Sea into troubled waters.”
The United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and even Germany have performed Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), where ships are sailed through international waters as a signal that no one can claim them, in the South China over the last year. The reference to “one big power” would clearly be targeted at Washington, which has more than doubled FONOPS in the region over the last five years.
The German example is particularly striking because it was the first German military transit of the sea since 2002, and comes as China has risen to become Germany’s most important trading partner. (One German here joked that as the ship made its way through the sea it seemed to grow from an aging frigate to an aircraft carrier with each news story.)
Responding to a question at the end of his speech, Wei seemed to refer to the various European FONOPS when he said the South China Sea “issue should be resolved by countries in the region. The question is, right now, there are countries — non-regional countries — meddling with issues in the South China Sea, stirring up trouble.”
Wei later insisted that China’s vast weapons modernization is wholly defensive in nature. “China’s position is very clear. If you want to talk, we should talk with mutual respect. If you want to engage, we should seek peaceful coexistence,” he said referencing the United States. “However, if you want confrontation, we will fight to the end.”
It doesn’t seem Wei’s comments found much traction among the audience at the conference. All the questions he received after his speech were either critical or skeptical, clearly reflecting a fundamental skepticism among the audience.
One close observer of China here at Shangri-La Dialogue, the Stimson Center’s Yun Sun, said this in an email: “The perspectives are simply so different. What China believes to be righteous and rightful is seen as aggressive and threatening by others.
“Based on the questions to him, the reaction is negativity, incredulity and disbelief. The world doesn’t buy it.”
Five Marines and a Super Hornet pilot were killed in recent naval aviation crashes.
14. There Is No Military Path for Ukraine To 'Defeat' Russia
Quote:
Oddball: [groans] Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning.
There Is No Military Path for Ukraine To 'Defeat' Russia
The Tide of Battle – and Mounting Casualties – Turning Against Ukraine – Since it became evident a few weeks into Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine that Moscow’s troops were stopped cold outside of Kyiv, there has been a near-universal belief in the West that Ukraine would eventually win. All that was needed, many pundits claimed, was to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s forces sufficient numbers of weapons and ammunition. As the war now grinds towards the four-month mark, it is becoming painfully evident that the odds are stacked in Russia’s favor.
Militarily speaking, there is no rational path through which Ukraine will ever win its war. Without a course correction – and soon – Kyiv itself may not ultimately be safe.
After Russian armor suffered a “stunning defeat” by Ukrainian defenders north of Kyiv and Kharkiv during the first few weeks of war, many pundits were writing off the Russian army as “incompetent” and suggested they were incapable of defeating the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF), whose great bravery and skills were widely hailed.
In late April, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visited Kyiv and told Zelensky that the West could provide his troops with “the right equipment” and the “right support” because Austin wanted to help Ukraine win and see “Russia weakened.” In addition to direct battlefield aid, the West concurrently wielded economic tools intended to deprive Putin of the capacity to continue waging war.
In the early days of the war, Biden imposed sanctions that the White House said would be “the most impactful, coordinated, and wide-ranging economic restrictions in history.” On June 3, the European Union enacted the sixth tranche of sanctions, featuring a partial ban on the import of most Russian oil and gas. The intent behind these punitive battlefield and economic measures was to weaken or halt Putin’s ability to continue his war in Ukraine and equip Kyiv to win its war. It is now becoming evident that this strategy is failing on both counts.
Throughout the first three months of the war, there were almost universal positive statements by U.S. and Ukrainian leaders, suggesting Kyiv’s troops would “drive Russia from” Ukrainian soil and that Kyiv would not accept any negotiated settlement that ceded any territory to Russia. Yet earlier this week London’s The Independent revealed portions of a leaked classified intelligence report out of Kyiv that exposed a much harsher battlefield reality than had been admitted publicly.
According to the report, Russia’s relentless bombardment of Ukrainian troops over the first 100+ days of the war had destroyed major portions of their Soviet-era equipment and depleted their stocks of artillery ammunition. The result is that frontline Ukrainian units are outgunned 20-1 in artillery and an eye-popping 40-1 in artillery rounds. Combined with the fact Russia continues to have significant advantages in air power (up to 300 air sorties per day compared with three to five for Ukraine) and manpower, it is not surprising Ukraine is losing its grip on the Donbas.
Ukrainian Minister of Defense Oleksiy Reznikov confirms upwards of 100 UAF troops are being killed each day (some reports suggest the number is closer to 200 per day) and 500 more wounded. Zelensky concedes that Russia occupies more than 20% of Ukrainian territory – growing by the day. While it is entirely understandable that no Ukrainian leader would ever want to cede any of its country to an invading power, there are other, harsher realities that must be taken into account.
The choice, in other words, may not be a matter of whether Ukraine should give up territory or not, but whether it must give up territory now to limit the damage or continue fighting in the hopes of one day winning it all back – at egregious cost now, and with no guarantee that they would not later lose even more territory. For example, today Ukraine still holds key parts of the Donbas (the Slavyansk/Kramatorsk salient in the north, the Avdiivka area in the center, and large portions of the Donetsk region to the south. Kharkiv and Odessa are still fully under Kyiv’s control. Evidence suggests that as more time passes, that list of Ukraine-controlled cities will continue to shrink.
It would be a near-impossible feat for the West to provide enough heavy weaponry to Ukraine – and the massive volumes of large-caliber artillery ammunition the howitzers need – that would bring back into balance the major disadvantage Ukraine has in firepower. Even the modern rocket launchers the U.S. and UK recently committed will not materially change the negative balance for Kyiv.
Zelensky and the Ukrainian people will soon come face-to-face with the ugly prospect that continuing to fight will only bring more death and destruction to its people, cities, and armed forces – but be insufficient to stave off defeat. The truth is, military fundamentals and simple capacity are in Moscow’s favor. It is unlikely those factors change in time to avoid defeat for Kyiv and its brave people. That is the ugly, bitter reality of war.
15. Divisions in the west threaten Ukraine
Divisions in the west threaten Ukraine
In military terms, Kyiv is losing ground as the US and its allies argue about the real aims of the war
Early in the Vietnam war, President Lyndon Johnson asked one of his top generals what it would take “to do the job”. The unhelpful reply was to ask for a definition of the job. A later White House study defined winning in Vietnam as “demonstrating to the Vietcong that they cannot win”.
Now, as they support Ukraine in its war with Russia, western powers are once again tempted to define winning as not losing. The Ukrainians worry that they will be given just enough to keep fighting — but not enough to defeat Russia. This is an agonising prospect at a time when their cities are being devastated and the Ukrainian army is losing hundreds of men a day as it fights to stem a Russian advance.
A recent article by President Joe Biden defined America’s main goal as the preservation of a free and independent Ukraine. Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, has often said that Russia must not win — but has never said that Ukraine must achieve victory. A spokesman for Emmanuel Macron briefed anonymously that France wants Ukraine to be victorious, but the president himself is yet to utter those words.
By contrast, Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, stated simply that “Ukraine must win”. And Kaja Kallas, the prime minister of Estonia, has said: “Victory has to be the goal and not some peace agreement.”
The difference between those who call for Ukrainian victory and those who restrict themselves to saying that Russia must not win is much more than a matter of nuance. It dictates crucial decisions about the kind of weaponry to be provided for Ukraine — and whether and when to push for a peace settlement. The Estonian rejection of “some peace agreement” contrasts with Biden’s stated aim of putting Ukraine “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table”.
Lying behind these views is a difference in threat perception. Those who see the major danger as Russian imperialism are ready to call for Ukrainian victory. This camp includes Poland, Britain, the Baltic states and Finland.
Those who worry most about war between Russia and the west will talk only about Moscow not winning. They fear that pushing for outright Ukrainian victory could lead to direct conflict between Russia and the west or the use of Russian nuclear weapons. France and Germany are in this camp.
The US, crucially, is somewhere in the middle — trying to balance its response to both threats, as it provides the bulk of the military aid to Ukraine. The dominant view in the Biden administration is that, having worried too much about nuclear conflict at the start of the war, the west is now in danger of worrying too little.
Russian military doctrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat to the nation. Senior US officials think that it is possible that Vladimir Putin, Russia’s leader, would see a humiliating defeat in Ukraine as representing that kind of existential threat. That creates a paradoxical situation — in which the better Ukraine does on the battlefield, the more dangerous the situation becomes.
These concerns inject real caution into US policy and are why Washington has decided to limit the range of the new missiles that it is supplying to Ukraine. The Americans decided not to send artillery that can strike well into Russia because that might look too much like a direct US attack. (Meanwhile, the delivery of heavy weapons from Germany keeps being delayed.)
All this is a source of deep frustration for those in the western alliance who think that the biggest danger is Russian imperialism — not Russian defeat. They point to Putin’s recent remarks in which he cast himself as the heir to Peter the Great, in reclaiming — as he put it — and expanding Russian territory.
This school of thought is dismissive of the idea that Putin would ever go nuclear — arguing that the Russian leader has always exhibited a strong instinct for self-preservation. They believe that the only way of finally ending the Russian imperial threat is to humiliate Putin. This leads to the call for much more aggressive military moves — such as providing Kyiv with the means to sink the Russian fleet that is currently blockading Ukrainian ports.
Conscious of the need to maintain western unity, America and its allies have come up with a few verbal formulas that they can all agree on. Everyone, including Scholz and Macron, agrees that there will be no peace deal imposed on Ukraine. But the Ukrainian concern is that they will, de facto, be forced to concede territory because they will not be given powerful enough weaponry to prevent Russia advancing on the battlefield.
A lot will depend on what impact the new artillery systems promised to Ukraine have in the coming weeks. Despite their underlying divisions, most western governments seem to think that if Ukraine can force Russia back to where its armed forces began on February 24, before the invasion, then this would provide a basis for serious negotiations.
Unfortunately, however, there is no guarantee that Ukraine can achieve this kind of victory — or that either side will stop fighting, if the February 24 lines are reached. In Ukraine, as in Vietnam, the definition of victory is dangerously elusive and the result may be a long, brutal war of attrition.
16. Why War Fails
Cautionary words for all who go to war or who advocate the use of military power from Sir Lawrence Freedman.
And very wise words here:
But this leads to the fourth condition. The ability to act effectively at any level of command requires a commitment to the mission and an understanding of its political purpose. These elements were lacking on the Russian side because of the way Putin launched his war: the enemy the Russian forces had been led to expect was not the one they faced, and the Ukrainian population was not, contrary to what they had been told, inclined to be liberated. The more futile the fight, the lower the morale and the weaker the discipline of those fighting. In these circumstances, local initiative can simply lead to desertion or looting. By contrast, the Ukrainians were defending their territory against an enemy intent on destroying their land. There was an asymmetry of motivation that influenced the fighting from the start. Which takes us back to the folly of Putin’s original decision. It is hard to command forces to act in support of a delusion.
Why War Fails
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and the Limits of Military Power
July/August 2022
On February 27, a few days after Russia invaded Ukraine, Russian forces launched an operation to seize the Chornobaivka airfield near Kherson on the Black Sea coast. Kherson was the first Ukrainian city the Russians managed to occupy, and since it was also close to Russia’s Crimean stronghold, the airfield would be important for the next stage of the offensive. But things did not go according to plan. The same day the Russians took over the airfield, Ukrainian forces began counterattacking with armed drones and soon struck the helicopters that were flying in supplies from Crimea. In early March, according to Ukrainian defense sources, Ukrainian soldiers made a devastating night raid on the airstrip, destroying a fleet of 30 Russian military helicopters. About a week later, Ukrainian forces destroyed another seven. By May 2, Ukraine had made 18 separate attacks on the airfield, which, according to Kyiv, had eliminated not only dozens of helicopters but also ammunition depots, two Russian generals, and nearly an entire Russian battalion. Yet throughout these attacks, Russian forces continued to move in equipment and materiel with helicopters. Lacking both a coherent strategy for defending the airstrip and a viable alternative base, the Russians simply stuck to their original orders, with disastrous results.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has described the Chornobaivka battle as a symbol of the incompetence of Russia’s commanders, who were driving “their people to slaughter.” In fact, there were numerous similar examples from the first weeks of the invasion. Although Ukrainian forces were consistently outgunned, they used their initiative to great advantage, as Russian forces repeated the same mistakes and failed to change their tactics. From the start, the war has provided a remarkable contrast in approaches to command. And these contrasts may go a long way toward explaining why the Russian military has so underperformed expectations.
In the weeks leading up to the February 24 invasion, Western leaders and analysts and the international press were naturally fixated on the overwhelming forces that Russian President Vladimir Putin was amassing on Ukraine’s borders. As many as 190,000 Russian troops were poised to invade the country. Organized into as many as 120 battalion tactical groups, each had armor and artillery and was backed by superior air support. Few imagined that Ukrainian forces could hold out for very long against the Russian steamroller. The main question about the Russian plans was whether they included sufficient forces to occupy such a large country after the battle was won. But the estimates had failed to account for the many elements that factor into a true measure of military capabilities.
Military power is not only about a nation’s armaments and the skill with which they are used. It must take into account the resources of the enemy, as well as the contributions from allies and friends, whether in the form of practical assistance or direct interventions. And although military strength is often measured in firepower, by counting inventories of arms and the size of armies, navies, and air forces, much depends on the quality of the equipment, how well it has been maintained, and on the training and motivation of the personnel using it. In any war, the ability of an economy to sustain the war effort, and the resilience of the logistical systems to ensure that supplies reach the front lines as needed, is of increasing importance as the conflict wears on. So is the degree to which a belligerent can mobilize and maintain support for its own cause, both domestically and externally, and undermine that of the enemy, tasks that require constructing compelling narratives that can rationalize setbacks as well as anticipate victories. Above all, however, military power depends on effective command. And that includes both a country’s political leaders, who act as supreme commanders, and those seeking to achieve their military goals as operational commanders.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored the crucial role of command in determining ultimate military success. The raw force of arms can only do so much for a state. As Western leaders discovered in Afghanistan and Iran, superior military hardware and firepower may enable forces to gain control of territory, but they are far less effective in the successful administration of that territory. In Ukraine, Putin has struggled even to gain control of territory, and the way that his forces have waged war has already ensured that any attempt to govern, even in Ukraine’s supposedly pro-Russian east, will be met by animosity and resistance. For in launching the invasion, Putin made the familiar but catastrophic mistake of underestimating the enemy, assuming it to be weak at its core, while having excessive confidence in what his own forces could achieve.
The Fate of Nations
Commands are authoritative orders, to be obeyed without question. Military organizations require strong chains of command because they commit disciplined and purposeful violence. At times of war, commanders face the special challenge of persuading subordinates to act against their own survival instincts and overcome the normal inhibitions about murdering their fellow humans. The stakes can be extremely high. Commanders may have the fate of their countries in their hands and must be deeply aware of the potential for national humiliation should they fail as well as for national glory if they succeed.
Military command is often described as a form of leadership, and as outlined in treatises on command, the qualities sought in military leaders are often those that would be admirable in almost any setting: deep professional knowledge, the ability to use resources efficiently, good communication skills, the ability to get on with others, a sense of moral purpose and responsibility, and a willingness to care for subordinates. But the high stakes of war and the stresses of combat impose their own demands. Here, the relevant qualities include an instinct for maintaining the initiative, an aptitude for seeing complex situations clearly, a capacity for building trust, and the ability to respond nimbly to changing or unexpected conditions. The historian Barbara Tuchman identified the need for a combination of resolution—“the determination to win through”—and judgment, or the capacity to use one’s experience to read situations. A commander who combines resolve with keen strategic intelligence can achieve impressive results, but resolve combined with stupidity can lead to ruin.
Not all subordinates will automatically follow commands. Sometimes orders are inappropriate, perhaps because they are based on dated and incomplete intelligence and may therefore be ignored by even the most diligent field officer. In other cases, their implementation might be possible but unwise, perhaps because there is a better way to achieve the same objectives. Faced with orders they dislike or distrust, subordinates can seek alternatives to outright disobedience. They can procrastinate, follow orders half-heartedly, or interpret them in a way that fits better with the situation that confronts them.
To avoid these tensions, however, the modern command philosophy followed in the West has increasingly sought to encourage subordinates to take the initiative to deal with the circumstances at hand; commanders trust those close to the action to make the vital decisions yet are ready to step in if events go awry. This is the approach Ukrainian forces have adopted. Russia’s command philosophy is more hierarchical. In principle, Russian doctrine allows for local initiative, but the command structures in place do not encourage subordinates to risk disobeying their orders. Inflexible command systems can lead to excessive caution, a fixation on certain tactics even when they are inappropriate, and a lack of “ground truth,” as subordinates dare not report problems and instead insist that all is well.
Russia’s problems with command in Ukraine are less a consequence of military philosophy than of current political leadership. In autocratic systems such as Russia’s, officials and officers must think twice before challenging superiors. Life is easiest when they act on the leader’s wishes without question. Dictators can certainly make bold decisions on war, but these are far more likely to be based on their own ill-informed assumptions and are unlikely to have been challenged in a careful decision-making process. Dictators tend to surround themselves with like-minded advisers and to prize loyalty above competence in their senior military commanders.
From Success to Stalemate
Putin’s readiness to trust his own judgment in Ukraine reflected the fact that his past decisions on the use of force had worked out well for him. The state of the Russian military in the 1990s before he took power was dire, as shown by Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s 1994–96 war in Chechnya. At the end of 1994, Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev reassured Yeltsin that he could end Chechnya’s effort to secede from the Russian Federation by moving Russian forces quickly into Grozny, the Chechen capital. The Kremlin viewed Chechnya as an artificial, gangster-infested state for which few of its citizens could be expected to sacrifice their lives, especially when confronted with the full blast of Russian military power—misguided assumptions somewhat similar to those made on a much larger scale in the current invasion of Ukraine. The Russian units included many conscripts with little training, and the Kremlin failed to appreciate how much the Chechen defenders would be able to take advantage of the urban terrain. The results were disastrous. On the first day of the attack, the Russian army lost over 100 armored vehicles, including tanks; Russian soldiers were soon being killed at the rate of 100 a day. In his memoirs, Yeltsin described the war as the moment when Russia “parted with one more exceptionally dubious but fond illusion—about the might of our army . . . about its indomitability.”
The first Chechen war concluded unsatisfactorily in 1996. A few years later, Vladimir Putin, who became the ailing Yeltsin’s prime minister in September 1999, decided to fight the war again, but this time he made sure that Russia was prepared. Putin had previously been head of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, the successor to the KGB, where he began his career. When apartment buildings in Moscow and elsewhere were bombed in September 1999, Putin blamed Chechen terrorists (although there was good reason to suspect the FSB was seeking to create a pretext for a new war) and ordered Russian troops to gain control of Chechnya by “all available means.” In this second Chechen war, Russia proceeded with more deliberation and ruthlessness until it succeeded in occupying Grozny. Although the war dragged on for some time, Putin’s visible commitment to ending the Chechen rebellion was sufficient to provide him with a decisive victory in the spring 2000 presidential election. As Putin was campaigning, journalists asked him which political leaders he found “most interesting.” After citing Napoleon—which the reporters took as a joke—he offered Charles de Gaulle, a natural choice perhaps for someone who wanted to restore the effectiveness of the state with a strong centralized authority.
The taking of Crimea confirmed Putin’s status as a shrewd commander.
By 2013, Putin had gone some way toward achieving that end. High commodity prices had given him a strong economy. He had also marginalized his political opposition at home, consolidating his power. Yet Russia’s relations with the West had worsened, particularly concerning Ukraine. Ever since the Orange Revolution of 2004–5, Putin had worried that a pro-Western government in Kyiv might seek to join NATO, a fear aggravated when the issue was broached at NATO’s 2008 Bucharest summit. The crisis, however, came in 2013, when Victor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, was about to sign an association agreement with the EU. Putin put intense pressure on Yanukovych until he agreed not to sign. But Yanukovych’s reversal led to exactly what Putin had feared, a popular uprising—the Maidan movement—that ultimately brought down Yanukovych and left Ukraine completely in the hands of pro-Western leaders. At this point, Putin resolved to annex Crimea.
In launching his plan, Putin had the advantages of a Russian naval base at Sevastopol and considerable support for Russia among the local population. Yet he still proceeded carefully. His strategy, which he has followed since, was to present any aggressive Russian move as no more than a response to pleas from people who needed protection. Deploying troops with standard uniforms and equipment but no markings, who came to be known as the “little green men,” the Kremlin successfully convinced the local parliament to call a referendum on incorporating Crimea into Russia. As these events unfolded, Putin was prepared to hold back should Ukraine or its Western allies put up a serious challenge. But Ukraine was in disarray—it had only an acting minister of defense and no decision-making authority in a position to respond—and the West took no action against Russia beyond limited sanctions. For Putin, the taking of Crimea, with hardly any casualties, and with the West largely standing on the sidelines, confirmed his status as a shrewd supreme commander.
But Putin was not content to walk away with this clear prize; instead, that spring and summer, he allowed Russia to be drawn into a far more intractable conflict in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Here, he could not follow the formula that had worked so well in Crimea: pro-Russian sentiment in the east was too feeble to imply widespread popular support for secession. Very quickly, the conflict became militarized, with Moscow claiming that separatist militias were acting independently of Russia. Nonetheless, by summer, when it looked like the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, the two pro-Russian enclaves in the Donbas, might be defeated by the Ukrainian army, the Kremlin sent in regular Russian forces. Although the Russians then had no trouble against the Ukrainian army, Putin was still cautious. He did not annex the enclaves, as the separatists wanted, but instead took the opportunity to get a deal in Minsk, intending to use the enclaves to influence Kyiv’s policies.
To some Western observers, Russia’s war in the Donbas looked like a potent new strategy of hybrid warfare. As analysts described it, Russia was able to put its adversaries on the back foot by bringing together regular and irregular forces and overt and covert activities and by combining established forms of military action with cyberattacks and information warfare. But this assessment overstated the coherence of the Russian approach. In practice, the Russians had set in motion events with unpredictable consequences, led by individuals they struggled to control, for objectives they did not wholly share. The Minsk agreement was never implemented, and the fighting never stopped. At most, Putin had made the best of a bad job, containing the conflict and, while disrupting Ukraine, deterring the West from getting too involved. Unlike in Crimea, Putin had shown an uncertain touch as a commander, with the Donbas enclaves left in limbo, belonging to no country, and Ukraine continuing to move closer to the West.
Underwhelming Force
By the summer of 2021, the Donbas war had been at a stalemate for more than seven years, and Putin decided on a bold plan to bring matters to a head. Having failed to use the enclaves to influence Kyiv, he sought to use their plight to make the case for regime change in Kyiv, ensuring that it would reenter Moscow’s sphere of influence and never again contemplate joining either NATO or the EU. Thus, he would undertake a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Such an approach would require a huge commitment of armed forces and an audacious campaign. But Putin’s confidence had been boosted by Russia’s recent military intervention in Syria, which successfully propped up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and by recent efforts to modernize Russia’s armed forces. Western analysts had largely accepted Russian claims about the country’s growing military strength, including new systems and armaments, such as “hypersonic weapons,” that at least sounded impressive. Moreover, healthy Russian financial reserves would limit the effect of any punitive sanctions. And the West appeared divided and unsettled after Donald Trump’s presidency, an impression that was confirmed by the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021.
When Putin launched what he called the “special military operation” in Ukraine, many in the West feared that it might succeed. Western observers had watched Russia’s massive buildup of forces on the Ukrainian border for months, and when the invasion began, the minds of U.S. and European strategists raced ahead to the implications of a Russian victory that threatened to incorporate Ukraine into a revitalized Greater Russia. Although some NATO countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, had rushed military supplies to Ukraine, others, following this pessimism, were more reluctant. Additional equipment, they concluded, was likely to arrive too late or even be captured by the Russians.
Pro-Russian soldiers in Donetsk, Ukraine, March 7, 2022
Alexander Ermochenko / Reuters
Less noted was that the Russian troop buildup—notwithstanding its formidable scale—was far from sufficient to take and hold all of Ukraine. Even many in or connected to the Russian military could see the risks. In early February 2022, Igor “Strelkov” Girkin, one of the original Russian separatist leaders in the 2014 campaign, observed that Ukraine’s military was better prepared than it had been eight years earlier and that “there aren’t nearly enough troops mobilized, or being mobilized.” Yet Putin did not consult experts on Ukraine, relying instead on his closest advisers—old comrades from the Russian security apparatus—who echoed his dismissive view that Ukraine could be easily taken.
As soon as the invasion got underway, the central weaknesses in the Russian campaign became apparent. The plan was for a short war, with decisive advances in several different parts of the country on the first day. But Putin and his advisers’ optimism meant that the plan was shaped largely around rapid operations by elite combat units. Little consideration was given to logistics and supply lines, which limited Russia’s ability to sustain the offensive once it stalled, and all the essentials of modern warfare, including food, fuel, and ammunition, began to be rapidly consumed. In effect, the number of axes of advance created a number of separate wars being fought at once, all presenting their own challenges, each with their own command structures and without an appropriate mechanism to coordinate their efforts and allocate resources among them.
The first sign that things were not going according to Putin’s plan was what happened at the Hostomel airport, near Kyiv. Told that they would meet little resistance, the elite paratroopers who had been sent to hold the airport for incoming transport aircraft were instead repelled by a Ukrainian counterattack. Eventually, the Russians succeeded in taking the airport, but by then, it was too damaged to be of any value. Elsewhere, apparently formidable Russian tank units were stopped by far more lightly armed Ukrainian defenders. According to one account, a huge column of Russian tanks that was destined for Kyiv was initially stopped by a group of just 30 Ukrainian soldiers, who approached it at night on quad bikes and succeeded in destroying a few vehicles at the head of the column, leaving the rest stuck on a narrow roadway and open to further attack. The Ukrainians successfully repeated such ambushes in many other areas.
Ukrainian forces, with Western assistance, had undertaken energetic reforms and planned their defenses carefully. They were also highly motivated, unlike many of their Russian counterparts, who were unsure why they were there. Agile Ukrainian units, drawing first on antitank weapons and drones and then on artillery, caught Russian forces by surprise. In the end, then, the early course of the war was determined not by greater numbers and firepower but by superior tactics, commitment, and command.
Compounding Errors
From the outset of the invasion, the contrast between the Russian and Ukrainian approaches to command was stark. Putin’s original strategic error was to assume that Ukraine was both hostile enough to engage in anti-Russian activities and incapable of resisting Russian might. As the invasion stalled, Putin appeared unable to adapt to the new reality, insisting that the campaign was on schedule and proceeding according to plan. Prevented from mentioning the high numbers of Russian casualties and numerous battlefield setbacks, the Russian media have relentlessly reinforced government propaganda about the war. By contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the initial target of the Russian operation, refused offers from the United States and other Western powers to be taken to safety to form a government in exile. He not only survived but stayed in Kyiv, visible and voluble, rallying his people and pressing Western governments for more support, financial and military. By demonstrating the overwhelming commitment of the Ukrainian people to defend their country, he encouraged the West to impose far more severe sanctions on Russia than it might otherwise have done, as well as to get supplies of weapons and war materiel to Ukraine. While Putin stubbornly repeated himself as his “special military operation” faltered, Zelensky grew in confidence and political stature.
Putin’s baleful influence also hung over other key strategic decisions by Russia. The first, following the initial setbacks, was the Russian military’s decision to adopt the brutal tactics it had used in Chechnya and Syria: targeting civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and residential buildings. These attacks caused immense suffering and hardship and, as could have been predicted, only strengthened Ukrainian resolve. The tactics were also counterproductive in another sense. Combined with the revelations about possible war crimes by Russian troops in areas around Kyiv, such as Bucha, Russia’s attacks on nonmilitary targets convinced leaders in Washington and other Western capitals that it was pointless to try to broker a compromise settlement with Putin. Instead, Western governments accelerated the flow of weapons to Ukraine, with a growing emphasis on offensive as well as defensive systems. This was not the war between Russia and NATO claimed by Moscow propagandists, but it was rapidly becoming the next closest thing.
An unbroken string of poor command decisions left Putin with few options.
A second key strategic decision came on March 25, when Russia abandoned its maximalist goal of taking Kyiv and announced that it was concentrating instead on the “complete liberation” of the Donbas region. This new objective, although it promised to bring greater misery to the east, was more realistic, and it would have been yet more so if it had been the initial aim of the invasion. The Kremlin also now appointed an overall Russian commander to lead the war, a general whose approach would be more methodical and employ additional artillery to prepare the ground before armor and infantry moved forward. But the effect of these shifts was limited because Putin needed quick results and didn’t give the Russian forces time to recover and prepare for this second round of the war.
The momentum had already swung from Russia to Ukraine, and it could not be turned around quickly enough to meet Putin’s timetable. Some analysts speculated that Putin wanted something that he could call a victory on May 9, the Russian holiday marking the end of the Great Patriotic War, Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany. As likely, though, was his and his senior military commanders’ desire to make territorial gains in the east before Ukraine could absorb new weapons from the United States and Europe. As a result, Russian commanders sent units that had just been withdrawn from the north back into combat in the east; there was no time to replenish the troops or remedy the failings exhibited in the first phase of the war.
In the new offensive, which began in earnest in mid-April, Russian forces made few gains, while Ukrainian counterattacks nibbled away at their positions. To add to the embarrassment, Russia’s Black Sea flagship, the Moskva, was sunk in an audacious Ukrainian attack. By May 9, there was not a lot to celebrate in Moscow. Even the coastal city of Mariupol, which Russia had attacked mercilessly since the start of the war and battered into rubble, was not fully captured until a week later. By that time, Western estimates were suggesting that a third of the initial Russian combat force, both personnel and equipment, had been lost. Rumors had circulated that Putin would use the holiday to announce a general mobilization to meet the army’s need for manpower, but no such announcement was made. For one thing, such a move would have been deeply unpopular in Russia. But it would also have taken time to get conscripts and reservists to the front, and Russia would still face chronic equipment shortages.
After an unbroken string of poor command decisions, Putin was running out of options. As the offensive in Ukraine completed its third month, many observers began to note that Russia had become stuck in an unwinnable war that it dared not lose. Western governments and senior NATO officials began to talk of a conflict that could continue for months, and possibly years, to come. That would depend on the ability of the Russian commanders to keep a fight going with depleted forces of low morale and also on the ability of Ukraine to move from a defensive strategy to an offensive one. Perhaps Russia’s military could still salvage something out of the situation. Or perhaps Putin would see at some point that it might be prudent to call for a cease-fire so he could cash in the gains made early in the war before a Ukrainian counteroffensive took them away, even though that would mean admitting failure.
Power Without Purpose
One must be careful when drawing large lessons from wars with their own special features, particularly from a war whose full consequences are not yet known. Analysts and military planners are certain to study the war in Ukraine for many years as an example of the limits to military power, looking for explanations as to why one of the strongest and largest armed forces in the world, with a formidable air force and navy and new equipment and with recent and successful combat experience, faltered so badly. Before the invasion, when Russia’s military was compared with Ukraine’s smaller and lesser-armed defense forces, few doubted which side would gain the upper hand. But actual war is determined by qualitative and human factors, and it was the Ukrainians who had sharper tactics, brought together by command structures, from the highest political level to the lowlier field commanders, that were fit for the purpose.
Putin’s war in Ukraine, then, is foremost a case study in a failure of supreme command. The way that objectives are set and wars launched by the commander in chief shapes what follows. Putin’s mistakes were not unique; they were typical of those made by autocratic leaders who come to believe their own propaganda. He did not test his optimistic assumptions about the ease with which he could achieve victory. He trusted his armed forces to deliver. He did not realize that Ukraine was a challenge on a completely different scale from earlier operations in Chechnya, Georgia, and Syria. But he also relied on a rigid and hierarchical command structure that was unable to absorb and adapt to information from the ground and, crucially, did not enable Russian units to respond rapidly to changing circumstances.
The value of delegated authority and local initiative will be one of the other key lessons from this war. But for these practices to be effective, the military in question must be able to satisfy four conditions. First, there must be mutual trust between those at the senior and most junior levels. Those at the highest level of command must have confidence that their subordinates have the intelligence and ability to do the right thing in demanding circumstances, while their subordinates must have confidence that the high command will provide what backing they can. Second, those doing the fighting must have access to the equipment and supplies they need to keep going. It helped the Ukrainians that they were using portable antitank and air-defense weapons and were fighting close to their home bases, but they still needed their logistical systems to work.
Third, those providing leadership at the most junior levels of command need to be of high quality. Under Western guidance, the Ukrainian army had been developing the sort of noncommissioned officer corps that can ensure that the basic demands of an army on the move will be met, from equipment maintenance to actual preparedness to fight. In practice, even more relevant was that many of those who returned to the ranks when Ukraine mobilized were experienced veterans and had a natural understanding of what needed to be done.
But this leads to the fourth condition. The ability to act effectively at any level of command requires a commitment to the mission and an understanding of its political purpose. These elements were lacking on the Russian side because of the way Putin launched his war: the enemy the Russian forces had been led to expect was not the one they faced, and the Ukrainian population was not, contrary to what they had been told, inclined to be liberated. The more futile the fight, the lower the morale and the weaker the discipline of those fighting. In these circumstances, local initiative can simply lead to desertion or looting. By contrast, the Ukrainians were defending their territory against an enemy intent on destroying their land. There was an asymmetry of motivation that influenced the fighting from the start. Which takes us back to the folly of Putin’s original decision. It is hard to command forces to act in support of a delusion.
17. DC shifts to damage control as Ukraine defense fades
Ugh... not another Armistice. That said what if after the Armistice Ukraine evolved like South Korea and Russian took the place of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State of north Korea. Remember the saying that Kim Il Sung "out-Stalined Stalin." Perhaps Putin can reclaim the title for being the most evil from Kim Il Sung. Putin should be very afraid of an Armistice
DC shifts to damage control as Ukraine defense fades
One possible outcome: a Korean-style armistice, with a line between East and West Ukraine but no peace treaty
asiatimes.com · by Uwe Parpart and David P. Goldman · June 13, 2022
Having made multiple declarations that Russia would cease to be a world power after the Ukraine war, President Biden and his top officials are now focused on damage control – warning Ukraine through proxies that it will have to sacrifice territory for a ceasefire.
Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Los Angeles, Biden blamed Volodymyr Zelensky for allegedly not heeding American warnings about a Russian invasion:
And, folks, nothing like this has happened since World War Two. I know a lot of people thought I was maybe exaggerating, but I knew — and we had data to sustain — he was going to go in, off the border. There was no doubt. And Zelenskyy didn’t want to hear it, nor did a lot of people. Understanding why they didn’t want to hear it. But he went in.
Ukrainian officials angrily disputed Biden’s version of events, but the cat was out of the bag.
That’s a turnabout from April 25, when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin declared in Kyiv that the United States wanted to destroy Russia’s capacity to undertake wars on this scale: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. So it has already lost a lot of military capability. And a lot of its troops, quite frankly. And we want to see them not have the capability to very quickly reproduce that capability.”
A month earlier, Biden had tweeted, “The Russian economy is on track to be cut in half. It was ranked the 11th biggest economy in the world before this invasion — and soon, it will not even rank among the top 20.”
By late May, Russian artillery had begun to reduce Ukrainian forces in the Donbas, threatening to trap Ukrainian forces in a pocket around Severodonetsk – now all but under Russian control. Pentagon observers noted that the Russians had learned to coordinate artillery, infantry, armor and air power. Ukraine began to lose 100 to 200 killed in action per day.
The first sign of a shift to damage-control in Washington came June 8 in a New York Times report by reporter Julian Barnes, quoting US intelligence officials who complained that “American intelligence agencies have less information than they would like about Ukraine’s operations and possess a far better picture of Russia’s military, its planned operations and its successes and failures.”
That is implausible, but not impossible; the United States has satellite images that reveal every detail of ground action, as well as 150 advisers on the ground as of January. Failure to assess the situation on the ground in Ukraine would imply a stupefying level of incompetence in the American intelligence community, which cannot be excluded.
A former senior CIA official, Beth Sanner, told the newspaper, “How much do we really know about how Ukraine is doing? Can you find a person who will tell you with confidence how many troops has Ukraine lost, how many pieces of equipment has Ukraine lost?” Sanner formerly was deputy director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – and a presidential briefer during 2017.
“Everything is about Russia’s goals and Russia’s prospects for meeting their goals,” Sanner added. “We do not talk about whether Ukraine might be able to defeat them. And to me, I feel that we are setting ourselves up for another intel failure by not talking about that publicly.”
Translated from spook-speak, Sanner’s warning about an “intel failure” means that the failure had already occurred and that the intelligence services hoped to blame the Ukrainians for it – just as Biden did in Los Angeles two days later.
Asia Times noted the implications of Sanner’s interview with the New York Times in a June 9 situation report on Ukraine.
After her retirement last year Sanner joined Harvard’s Belfer Center for foreign policy. Belfer’s most prominent scholar is Graham Allison, a prominent realist and, in his own description, Henry Kissinger’s oldest student.
Kissinger told the World Economic Forum on May 23 that “movement towards negotiations and negotiations on peace need to begin in the next two months so that the outcome of the war should be outlined but before it could create upheaval and tensions that will be ever-harder to overcome, particularly between the eventual relationship of Russia, Georgia and of Ukraine towards Europe. Ideally, the dividing line should return the status quo ante.”
The “status quo ante” implies that Ukraine will make territorial concessions to Russia—a phrase that Kissinger did not use.
But NATO’s General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, who has taken a hawkish stance towards Russia since the inception of the war, spelled out the conditions for peace on June 12 at a press conference with the president of Finland:
“Peace is possible in Ukraine. The only question is how much are you willing to pay for this peace. How much are you willing to sacrifice land, independence, sovereignty, freedom and democracy. And that is a very difficult moral dilemma.”
The Ukraine government responded to Stoltenberg with a denial that it was willing to concede any territory at all.
One possible outcome that’s been floated in the American media and closely considered in Moscow is a Korean-style armistice, with an armistice line between East and West Ukraine but without a peace treaty.
Jong Eun Lee of American University wrote May 12 in The National Interest: “Nearly three months into a war, could Ukraine be convinced that a similar armistice is preferable to continued war? The burden is on the United States and the world to convince Ukrainians … that their security threats would not worsen in the future, and that their territorial losses could be restored in the future.”
An armistice would allow Ukraine to deny that it had given up claims on territory held by Russia. Although the proposal has been studied in Moscow, Russia has little motivation to accept it while it is gaining ground.
Some European countries, meanwhile express buyer’s remorse about the acquisition of Ukraine as a full-fledged member of the European family. The Netherlands and Denmark have raised objections to Ukrainian membership in the European Union, widely proposed as a response to the Russian invasion.
According to Bloomberg News, a diplomatic note from Denmark to the European Commission stated that “Ukraine does not sufficiently meet the criteria related to the stability of institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect and protection of minorities. Kyiv will need to fundamentally improve its legislative and institutional framework to make progress on all these fronts.”
The prospect of a reversal in Washington and the shift in sentiment towards Ukraine among some of the smaller European Union members leave the German government in a tricky position. Under American pressure, German Chancellor Olaf Scholze and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have agreed to provide heavy weapons to Ukraine.
That policy is deeply unpopular; according to a May 5 poll, 57% of Germans believe that heavy weapons deliveries to Ukraine would lead to an expansion of the war to other countries in Europe, versus 34% who support heavy weapons deliveries. Scholz appears to have caved in to American pressure to give military backing to Ukraine at exactly the moment when the Americans themselves are starting to express doubts.
The next several weeks of fighting will give the Ukraine government a different perspective. By one US military estimate, Ukraine has suffered up to 70,000 casualties (10,000 killed, 40,000-50,000 wounded, and about 10,000 prisoners). It is running out of the old Soviet ammunition for most of its heavy weapons, and it cannot move Western weapons to the front fast enough in the face of Russian artillery and missile – couldn’t even if the West were to supply it.
If the formula that Kissinger and Stoltenberg propose returns to the Western agenda, the warring parties will in effect return to something like the Minsk II framework – which the United States sabotaged in the advent of the present war. A peace agreement is deeply to be desired, but the character of any possible peace will make clear that the war was unnecessary to begin with.
asiatimes.com · by Uwe Parpart and David P. Goldman · June 13, 2022
18. Kishida Vision for Peace: Japan’s Global Leadership Gambit
Juxtaposed with the Yoon administration (Pak Jin's) vision: GPS, global pivotal state.
Kishida Vision for Peace: Japan’s Global Leadership Gambit
Is Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio proving to be as consequential a global statesman as his former boss, Abe Shinzo?
Advertisement
As the season of summitry sets in following the pandemic pause, from the Quad to NATO and the G-7 to G-20, Japan is demonstrating bold leadership. Tokyo remains determined to deliver solutions as the international community jostles with challenges to the rules-based order, both in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic theater.
Far from the initial speculations as to whether post-Abe Japan would command the same strategic clout in the global stage, today Japan is demonstrating refreshing confidence and decisiveness on the global stage. Given the tectonic shifts in global geopolitics and geoeconomics, Japan can hardly afford not to.
It is reassuring to see that despite nuanced differences in Kishida’s and Abe’s personalities and factional politics, what’s common is their ambition to carve out a bolder role for Japan as rule of force underwrites rule of law. What has changed since Abe’s time, though, is the transformative moment in international history with Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The pertinent question remains the same, if more urgent: When the rules-based order is contested, how is Japan going to respond? Tokyo’s answer is the “Kishida Vision for Peace” as articulated during the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue. How serious are the policy discussions beyond the rhetoric?
Abe positioned Japan as the standard bearer of values, rules, and principles in important international conversations, spinning grand ideas like the Confluence of the Two Seas and Democratic Security Diamond, paving the way for the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) and Quad. Kishida, who served as the longest serving foreign minister in the Abe administration, has over time matured as an astute leader with clear intention of scaling up Japan’s profile as a confident power.
For Kishida, it is as much about defending the rules-based international order as it is about building his own legacy beyond Abe’s towering international profile. Thus Kishida, with the aim of elevating FOIP to the next level, is churning out his own “Vision for Peace” and “Realism Diplomacy for the New Era” as Japan stands at a crossroads. Tokyo faces three fronts in Northeast Asian security with China, North Korea, and now Russia, not to mention the brewing China-Russia nexus and its impact on the power balance. With an impressive public approval rating at home, Kishida is operating from a solid ground despite the looming upper house election.
While the China-U.S. strategic competition alongside the pandemic-induced supply chain disruption posed difficult choices for Tokyo, Ukraine presented a litmus test for the leadership. Japan’s global economic leadership is already well established with Tokyo’s assiduous role in agenda-setting and rule-shaping, as seen in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the latest Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. However, developments in Eastern Europe are proving to be the right nudge Japan needs to fast-track its domestic security conversation and seek out a larger role in defending the foundation of international order.
How innovative is the Kishida Vision? Examining the five pillars it is anchored on may answer the question.
Advertisement
The first pillar is bolstering the rules-based free and open international order. This is not new. Japan has long been a resolute advocate of the rules-based international order. The FOIP conversation in Tokyo since its early days has repeatedly underscored Japan’s determination to preserve the free, open, and rules-based international order. In fact, in his 2013 “Japan is Back” speech, Abe envisioned Japan’s role as a leading promoter of rules and a guardian of the global commons.
What is innovative is Kishida’s determination to draw up a systematic “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Plan for Peace” by next spring with the aim of improving “maritime law enforcement capabilities, as well as cyber security, digital and green initiatives, and economic security.” In the next three years, Tokyo intends to expand technical cooperation and training to reinforce the maritime law enforcement capabilities of some 20 nations, train personnel on subjects of rule of law and governance, and further offer $2 billion assistance toward maritime security equipment and transportation infrastructure to fellow Indo-Pacific nations.
The second pillar is security-focused, including expanding Japan’s security role and enhancing deterrence capabilities. The incremental reorientation of Japan’s security role within the parameters of Article 9 and the right to collective self-defense is an ongoing process. The Abe years have been decisive in this regard. What Kishida has done in the backdrop of the developments around Ukraine is accelerate rather than alter the basic direction of the security conversation. Debates on doubling defense spending, counter-strike capabilities, as well as stability in Taiwan Strait in the mind space of defense planners and white papers, revision of the 2013 National Security Strategy and other defense planning predates the Ukraine war and also the Kishida administration.
What Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has done is put a definitive timeline – five years – on Tokyo’s plan of strengthening deterrence and response capabilities as Kishida’s narrative is “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.” But the challenge will be pursuing it within the parameters of Japan’s pacifist constitution. Nevertheless, the message is resonating with the Japanese public, since opinion polls show resounding support toward preparation for a Taiwan contingency. The core of Japan’s policy of external and internal balancing with the Japan-U.S. alliance at the core, and building a web of cooperation with Quad, ASEAN, and Europe remains intact. Going forward, Japan will step up its cooperation with NATO as well as the Pacific Islands as new frontiers of great power competition heats up.
The third pillar holds major significance as it is about doubling down with a sense of urgency, especially after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to realize a world without nuclear weapons. This is a close personal agenda of Kishida, who hails from the electoral district of Hiroshima. Northeast Asia hosts several nuclear power states. Kishida’s call encouraging both Washington and Beijing to engage in nuclear disarmament and arms control dialogue is noteworthy. His intention to become the first Japanese prime minister to participate in the NPT Review Conference demonstrates his seriousness. However, Japan’s debate and decision not to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons highlights the complexities of the issue.
The fourth pillar pushes U.N. reforms. Japan will be joining the U.N. Security Council as a non-permanent member in 2023, which will allow it space at the high table. Reforming the U.N. has been a priority project of successive governments. Despite Japan’s significant financial contribution, its reform push has seen little success. With China and Russia holding permanent U.N. Security Council seats, it will be rough ride.
The fifth pillar anchors economic security, one of the areas where the Kishida administration has made significant strides. From enacting an economic security law to creating a full-time minister post, deepening discussions on de-risking supply chains including semiconductors, batteries, rare earth, pharmaceuticals, and protecting strategic technologies are in full steam. The conversation on economic security started gaining traction even before Kishida took office in the context of the China-U.S. strategic contest and subsequently the pandemic – for instance regulation of foreign investments in core industries, setting up of a digital agency, subsidies supporting resilient supply chains, and so on. But this effort matured under Kishida and started to deliver on policy terms.
While Kishida has presented his Vision for Peace at the Shangri-la Dialogue, how he delivers on it will be judged by history. As Japan heads for the upper house election, Kishida’s Liberal Democratic Party is expected to secure a solid mandate. This will buy Kishida time to walk the talk on his Vision. Pursuing national security interests while navigating the China-Russia-U.S. dynamics is as much a challenge as an opportunity for Kishida to define Japan’s grand strategy.
19. Biden must own the Ukraine war’s endgame
Conclusion:
If Ukraine’s safety is to be guaranteed, then the message must be sent that Russia cannot transgress against Ukraine without affecting its interests elsewhere. If it wants a settlement, it must pay for it — with Iran, ideally. But somewhere. That would indicate that Ukraine is inextricably linked to our other bilateral issues with the Russians, and they cannot conduct business as usual if they throw their weight around in the east. That linkage is the best way — maybe the only way — to ensure Ukraine’s safety in the future.
Biden must own the Ukraine war’s endgame
NY Daily News · by Andrew PeekNew York Daily NewsJun 13, 2022 at 5:00 am
Nearly four months into Russia’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine, the most important thing for President Biden to do is own the endgame. The U.S., not the Europeans, need to control the final settlement. It can do that by first supplying Ukraine with the maximum amount of weapons for which it asks, including main battle tanks and long-range missile launchers capable of helping Ukraine go on the offensive. Second, it must conduct negotiations with Russia directly, but only when Russia wants. And third, it must broaden its demands to include more than Ukraine.
This does not mean the United States should insist on maximal political goals in Ukraine. Ukrainian forces are likely now at their peak threat to Russia. A full liberation of all territory seized since Feb. 24, let alone since 2014, would require the Ukrainian army to conduct large-scale offensive operations for which at the moment it is neither equipped nor prepared. The defense it has mounted so far has relied on groups of motivated infantry blunting Russian armored advances with anti-tank munitions while small units of operators destroy logistics columns. It has been admirably effective.
Advertisement
But the strengths of that force do not necessarily translate easily to mounting offensives of their own. That requires armor and effective integration of air and artillery forces to break through Russian lines, which are in places very well dug in. This does not mean it is impossible — only that it would be very difficult, like Iran invading southern Iraq in 1982. Popular armies are better on the defense than on the offense. Ukraine is now asking for the equipment to allow it to go on offense, and whether or not that offensive is successful, the U.S. should provide it to increase its political leverage in ceasefire negotiations.
Showdown. (Patrick Semansky/AP)
There is absolutely no time pressure on those negotiations. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom among states involved with the failed 2014 settlement in Ukraine focuses on the need to proactively give Russia something. For example, on June 4, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that Putin needs a victory to avoid being humiliated and give him a way to end the war.
Advertisement
That is, objectively speaking, completely insane. The West has no need to help extract Putin from a mess of his own making. At least — at very least — it has no need to do so without Putin explicitly requesting its help, and he has not yet done so.
The good news is that it doesn’t even really matter what France and Germany propose to Putin, since their effect on the war is minimal. Ukraine’s resistance and fighting capability is enabled most of all by the U.S., as well as the U.K., Poland, and other Eastern European nations. The U.S. is the key fulcrum of the war. Ukraine can keep fighting regardless of what Macron wants, but probably not regardless of what Biden wants, and Biden should use this to insert the U.S. as the key player in negotiating a settlement.
And if Putin wants the war to stop — more importantly, if he wants America’s help in stopping the war — the U.S. should make him pay for it. The most critical items are not the tactical laydown of forces and political mechanisms of sovereignty in the East. Probably some Russian forces will remain in Ukraine under any ceasefire. Probably Ukraine will not consent to ceding territory to Russia. Probably Russia will announce an annexation or liberation of some part of the East, regardless. Those are all tactical issues.
But the U.S. must have some items not related to Ukraine in the settlement — some concession on another issue, involving Russia’s behavior elsewhere. Russia’s entire strategy for nearly two decades in Eastern Europe has been to localize its behavior, to make Ukraine and Georgia and even NATO members like Estonia feel isolated when it commits aggression against them. Moscow will say to each new U.S. administration — and here I speak from some experience — that it wants to work with the United States productively on issues like Iran and arms control and climate and Syria and usually that administration will accept. This may achieve some low-hanging diplomatic fruit, but at the cost of indicating to the Russians that they can limit the fallout from aggression elsewhere.
If Ukraine’s safety is to be guaranteed, then the message must be sent that Russia cannot transgress against Ukraine without affecting its interests elsewhere. If it wants a settlement, it must pay for it — with Iran, ideally. But somewhere. That would indicate that Ukraine is inextricably linked to our other bilateral issues with the Russians, and they cannot conduct business as usual if they throw their weight around in the east. That linkage is the best way — maybe the only way — to ensure Ukraine’s safety in the future.
Peek was the senior director for European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council for President Trump.
NY Daily News · by Andrew PeekNew York Daily NewsJun 13, 2022 at 5:00 am
20. The Army Risks Reasoning Backwards in Analyzing Ukraine
One of our Army's wise strategic thinkers.
Wise words here:
What the Army should be after at this stage is an understanding of what questions it needs to ask. The conclusion about personnel deficiencies as the root cause of Russian difficulties is a case in point. What if instead of bungling the invasion due to professional incompetence, the Russians realized that their attempted rapid coup de main against Kyiv was not going to work and purposely changed their strategy? Will their current approach of a grinding war of attrition wear down the Ukrainian forces?
The character of the war in Ukraine has changed, which suggests a final first-order question for the Army: are the multi-domain operations concept and an all-volunteer force prepared for a protracted war of attrition? Conrad Crane’s admonition in these pages about the ability of the U.S. military to withstand such a war is important for the Army to address if it is going to prevail in the wars it may have to fight, rather than the ones it wants to fight.
There is a great deal at stake, not only for the Army but more broadly for the United States and its allies. Given the centrality of land forces in viable deterrence and defense regimes, the Army must get it right with multi-domain operations.
How the current Army team approaches its task will be fundamental to what it learns. Will it seek to find flaws in multi-domain operations and challenge its critical assumptions? Or will it look for evidence to validate multi-domain operations and the associated materiel and organizational initiatives that multi-domain operations justifies? To be blunt, is the team empowered to tell the Army that, after years of effort, its warfighting concept for the future would not have provided the theory of victory it advertises itself to be against Russian forces in Ukraine?
The Army Risks Reasoning Backwards in Analyzing Ukraine - War on the Rocks
Would the U.S. Army be able to prevail in a war like the one in Ukraine, were it to realize its vision of multi-domain operations? The Army sent a team of experts to Europe to collect lessons and paused the process of codifying its future warfighting concept into doctrine to find out. This is important because once the concept of multi-domain operations becomes doctrine, it becomes the authoritative guidance for how the Army will fight in the future. Until now, the multi-domain operations concept has been a statement of how the Army thinks it wants to fight. Concepts become doctrine after they are run through the wringer of evaluations, exercises, wargaming, and analyzed through the prism of relevant combat experience. This concept has gone through all the wickets except the last one. The war in Ukraine offers an important real-life case study through which to test multi-domain operations, especially since it involves Russia — one of the two “great powers” — the U.S. military has been instructed to aim at.
As I have previously written in these pages, the last time this type of analysis was possible was during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. The Soviet Union was not directly engaged, but the Arab militaries were using Soviet materiel and doctrine. This was close enough to create a crisis in the U.S. military, as Arab forces almost defeated the highly regarded Israeli military. Consequently, the war served as a wake-up call, particularly for the U.S. Army and Air Force, that they had to change if they were going to successfully contest the actual Soviet military.
Despite some other claims, the most important domain in the Russo-Ukrainian War is that of land. And as this war unfolds, I suspect Army researchers will find that the sort of operations and capabilities envisioned in the multi-domain concept would likely have been irrelevant in deterring and, when deterrence failed, defeating Russian aggression. Finally, I will offer several questions for the Army that can help frame its assessment of the war to ensure it is analyzing, rather than validating, the relevance of multi-domain operations.
The Domains in Ukraine Are Mainly On the…?
Whether or not multi-domain operations would have worked as advertised in Ukraine is of critical importance to the U.S. joint force as well as the Army. Will the armed services look to the war to challenge their own warfighting concepts, or will they cherry-pick insights that validate what they are doing?
The Russo-Ukrainian war is showing that war is still a brutal, grinding business that defies pat solutions and grandiose concepts. Geography and distance continue to impose their tyrannies, and mud continues to suck the momentum out of armies. Furthermore, dumb olive drab artillery rounds, rather than precision silver bullets, remain the greatest killer on the battlefield and may determine the outcome of the war. And Murphy’s Law, as well as friction, inevitably find their way into the well-oiled plans of both combatants.
The war is providing insights about peer conflict that are at odds with much of the thinking within the Department of Defense about how operations in the air, sea, land, space, and cyberspace domains contribute to operations. Aside from being important operational questions, the relative importance of a specific domain has significant bureaucratic implications. Each domain is associated with a service or major command, each of which has its own theory of victory centered on the importance of its domain. In short, greater domain relevance equals higher budgets.
To begin with, neither side has been able to establish general air superiority, much less supremacy. Furthermore, Russia and Ukraine are suffering significant numbers of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft losses. As with much else about this war, Western perspectives are being shaped by adroit Ukrainian information operations coupled with their very competent operational security. We simply do not know actual aircraft losses on either side beyond their self-reporting, which is probably biased towards depicting the other side’s losses as higher than they may be. Nor is it clear what is causing the losses, whether Stingers, high-end air defenses, or air-to-air combat. Nevertheless, it is clear that neither side rules the skies. Given the centrality of air dominance in U.S. doctrine, these details are incredibly important. Just asserting that the Air Force would have air supremacy in a conflict is no longer sufficient, because its absence affects every aspect of U.S. joint operations.
Sea control has also not been a key determinant of the military course of the war to this point, although the Russian blockade is wreaking havoc on the Ukrainian economy and the world’s food supply. Indeed, operations at sea are at a bit of a stalemate. Russian naval forces are tightening the blockade of the Ukrainian coastline and Odessa, the last major port under Ukrainian control. Although Ukrainian forces have sunk several Russian vessels, this has forced Russian naval forces to operate far from shore, not to quit operating.
Cyberspace has not been a dominant component of the war. Any details are shrouded in secrecy, but there are no reports of strategic calamities or any evidence of the centrality of cyber in this war as predicted by advocates. At the tactical and operational levels, more traditional electronic warfare operations such as jamming, locating adversaries, and listening in on their insecure communications have been useful. High-value targets — senior personnel and headquarters — have been located and targeted. Nevertheless, cyber has not been the absolute gamechanger many have predicted, given assumed Russian dominance in this domain.
Finally, space has contributed in important ways, particularly in providing overhead imagery for intelligence. Furthermore, commercial satellites have proven particularly useful. Which, as predicted, means this important resource will likely be widely available to all combatants even if they do not have their own space capabilities. Space-based assets, in combination with the proliferation of drones, are making the battlefield transparent. This calls for a close inspection of the age-old principle of surprise. Nevertheless, space has also not proven to be the next frontier after all — at least not so far.
That leaves the land domain. Thus, despite the naysayers, T.R. Fehrenbach’s caution happens to be as true today in the Russo-Ukrainian War as it was during the Korean War:
…you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life — but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.
The question before the U.S. joint force, particularly its Army, as it dissects the ongoing war in Ukraine, is how best to deter adversaries in the future, and, if they cannot be deterred, how to defeat them in a conflict. Again, this war shows that wars will be decided on land. The other domains will surely be in play and will affect an adversary’s ability to continue a war. Nevertheless, the endgame will be with the surrender or destruction of enemy ground forces and, if necessary, the defeat of any recalcitrant partisans or insurgents in their land areas of operation.
Question Multi-Domain Operations Rather than Reason Backwards
I believe that the Ukraine war offers the same opportunity for introspection about our Army as did the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Sending an assessment team to Europe is a sound decision if its orders are to critically assess the war and seek out flaws in the Army’s vision of multi-domain operations. It will be less useful if the approach taken is to attempt to simply validate the concepts the Army has preferred over the past several years. There are, however, early indications that self-validation is already creeping in, as reported by a recent article in Breaking Defense: “Army leaders have said that its massive modernization effort, which predated the Russian invasion and ranges from helicopters to secure communications, has been validated by the conflict.”
Therefore, it is extremely important to look at the war through a lens that is searching for questions and challenging assumptions, rather than seeking to verify predetermined outcomes. To this end, I will give an assessment of how I believe multi-domain operations would have performed in the current war.
Offensive Operations
The Army’s evolving concept for multi-domain operations, as U.S. Army doctrine has traditionally been in the past, is focused on the offense. This is because of the deep cultural belief in the Army — and the other services for that matter — that only offensive operations win wars.
A bit of Army history is useful in understanding how deeply the spirit of the offense is embedded in the Army DNA. In its 1923 Field Service Regulations, when the service was endeavoring to transition permanently from what had been a frontier constabulary to a modern army, how to win was crystal clear: “The ultimate objective of all military operations is the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces by battle…Decisive results are obtained only by the offensive.”
These words are repeated almost verbatim in the 2001 FM 3-0, Operations, with which the Army prosecuted Operation Iraqi Freedom: “The offense is the decisive form of war. Offensive operations aim to destroy or defeat an enemy. Their purpose is to impose U.S. will on the enemy and achieve decisive victory.”
Multi-domain operations has a similar orientation toward offensive operations in conflict, with three key components that are all clearly offensive in nature: penetrate, dis-integrate, and exploit. A key assumption in being prepared for offensive operations is that there are sufficient forces in the theater when the war begins to slow the enemy sufficiently for the main force to arrive. How this happens is largely absent from the concept.
Finally, at the end of the day, multi-domain operations is in competition with the other services for how a joint force commander will fight a war. At the moment, the services are all going their separate ways in developing their warfighting concepts and the joint warfighting concept is behind service efforts. In Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, each service fought its doctrine in its area of operations. This was not an issue against the Iraqis. It surely could be against Russia or China when unity of effort and allocation of resources will be critical.
What is the Army’s Mission in Europe?
This is the central question. My sense is that the Army’s mission in NATO is to deter aggression, not defeat aggression. This calls for a strategy of denial that seeks to deter adversary aggression “by making it infeasible or unlikely to succeed, thus denying a potential aggressor confidence in attaining its objectives.” A denial force is focused principally on defensive, rather than offensive, operations.
Additionally, an offense-focused multi-domain operations concept has other implications. The concept of multi-domain operations lays out how the Army wants to fight; Ukraine shows that it might not be relevant to how it will have to fight in Europe if such a day comes. If one shifts the battlefield from Ukraine to a Russian invasion of the Baltic countries, the scenario most often used in European conflict analyses, then the concept faces several showstoppers.
First, forces trained, organized, and equipped principally for offensive multi-domain operations will, by definition, be less prepared to defend.
Second, multi-domain operations’ battlefield architecture, particularly the strategic fires component, presupposes political willingness to cross a threshold by striking targets deep inside the adversary’s homeland. Against a nuclear-armed enemy, political constraints, shaped by the understandable desire to avoid escalation, could make this key part of multi-domain operations unusable. One should recall that it is only 600 kilometers from the Latvian border to Moscow. Furthermore, given political realities, the Army’s expensive hypersonic missile, with its range of over 2,500 kilometers, may not be usable.
Third, a forward presence of NATO forces on the eastern flank of NATO designed to deny Russian aggression means that it is capable of thwarting an attack if deterrence fails. Any offensive operations should be limited to restoring violated territory. To do more than this—entering the exploitation phase of multi-domain operations whose purpose is to “exploit the resultant freedom of maneuver to achieve strategic objectives [win]” could lead to broadening the war, depending on how the Russians interpret “win” and our strategic objectives. In any case, the Russians could believe that they are on the ropes. This, by their doctrine is one of the conditions when nuclear weapons become an operational option. Putin specified this in a 2020 decree, making it clear that Russia: “retains the right to use nuclear weapons…in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is put under threat.” I imagine that if Russia used, or threatened to use, a low-yield nuclear weapon on a U.S. exploitation force perceived to be driving into Russia — on Russian soil — we would think twice about responding with nuclear weapons, much less continuing operations.
Whither the U.S. Army?
Given the realities of what we are observing in Ukraine and the nature of future deterrence in Europe, Army concepts and their supporting capabilities should focus on denying a successful Russian invasion. Such a concept would drive a modernization strategy focused, at least in part, on providing capabilities to defend in depth and deny a Russian quick win. This would be more of an Active Defense 2.0, rather than an AirLand Battle 2.0.
This borders on heresy in the Army. Active defense was largely rejected by the Army in the 1970s because it was a defensive doctrine. AirLand Battle was much more in accord with Army culture. Clearly, there are antibodies within the Army, as well as among the other services, opposed to a defense-oriented doctrine.
There are several areas that the Army should be looking to discern from the war in Ukraine.
- Assess what Ukrainian force would have been sufficient to reach a sufficient correlation of forces with Russian forces to deter an invasion. Although this would not necessarily provide an answer for what is needed to prevent a Russian attack against NATO’s eastern member-states, given the potential protection offered by NATO membership, it would give an initial net assessment of the needed deterrent forces to prevent aggression.
- Analyze what capabilities a deterrent force would require if its primary mission was defense, rather than offense.
- Determine which Russian and Ukrainian capabilities were important in this war and how the Army will specifically provide itself with like capabilities as well as approaches to counter these capabilities. Foremost among these are drones, air defenses, combat vehicle (tank) survivability, and indirect fires.
- Understand potential Russian reactions to operational and strategic attacks into Russian territory.
- Assess the vulnerabilities of key Army systems, given Russian and Ukrainian losses in this war, in order to determine mitigating approaches, both technical and tactical.
- Examine the ability of the U.S. industrial base to keep up with munitions expenditures and materiel losses if a war with Russia is protracted.
-
Assess the NATO theater medical system to understand its potential shortfalls if casualties approach those by both combatants in Ukraine. I led a RAND research effort before Operation Iraqi Freedom in this area and the results were sobering.
This is just a short list that should provide scope to the Army’s attempts to understand the implications of the war in Ukraine for multi-domain operations.
I would also offer a caution about avoiding seeing what we want to see. Thus far, much of the analysis of the war has blamed poorly trained Russian soldiers and ineffective leaders for their failures. As I wrote recently in War on the Rocks, the Army and the other services believe they do not share this problem. Given that the Russians have similar, and in some cases, better capabilities than the U.S. Army, and have a similar operational doctrine, such an assessment could lead to the false conclusion that the U.S. Army, with multi-domain operations and the envisioned new capabilities it is developing, would prevail because of the qualitative advantage provided by the all-volunteer U.S. military. But it is too early to reach this, much less any other determinations.
Clearly, the Army does not directly decide how a combatant commander will employ the forces it provides. Nevertheless, the forces it provides will be well-trained and professionally led. Again, this is the key pillar of U.S. military competence that it believes fundamentally differentiates it from the Russians. This force that will be primed to execute multi-domain operations will be less prepared to offer, much less execute, other options to the combatant commander or their civilian masters. Therefore, it could be that the Army’s professionalism may make it less prepared to fight the war it could find itself in with Russia or China. This is important for all the U.S. military services, as Michael Kofman notes: “The wrong ideas will guide U.S. efforts away from trying to get on the right side of a cost imposition curve in attrition warfare, which is likely to define the next great power war, whether defense planners like it or not.”
What the Army should be after at this stage is an understanding of what questions it needs to ask. The conclusion about personnel deficiencies as the root cause of Russian difficulties is a case in point. What if instead of bungling the invasion due to professional incompetence, the Russians realized that their attempted rapid coup de main against Kyiv was not going to work and purposely changed their strategy? Will their current approach of a grinding war of attrition wear down the Ukrainian forces?
The character of the war in Ukraine has changed, which suggests a final first-order question for the Army: are the multi-domain operations concept and an all-volunteer force prepared for a protracted war of attrition? Conrad Crane’s admonition in these pages about the ability of the U.S. military to withstand such a war is important for the Army to address if it is going to prevail in the wars it may have to fight, rather than the ones it wants to fight.
There is a great deal at stake, not only for the Army but more broadly for the United States and its allies. Given the centrality of land forces in viable deterrence and defense regimes, the Army must get it right with multi-domain operations.
How the current Army team approaches its task will be fundamental to what it learns. Will it seek to find flaws in multi-domain operations and challenge its critical assumptions? Or will it look for evidence to validate multi-domain operations and the associated materiel and organizational initiatives that multi-domain operations justifies? To be blunt, is the team empowered to tell the Army that, after years of effort, its warfighting concept for the future would not have provided the theory of victory it advertises itself to be against Russian forces in Ukraine?
David Johnson is a retired Army colonel. He is a principal researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and an adjunct scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He is the author of Fast Tanks and Heavy Bombers: Innovation in the U.S. Army 1917-1945. From 2012 to 2014 he founded and directed the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group for Gen. Raymond T. Odierno.
21. From Complicated to Complex: The Changing Context of War
Excerpts:
Developing new ways for the Army to operate, organize, and equip will not be effective if the Army does not deliberately train soldiers to lead on complex and dynamic battlefields. Military command historically developed in a top-down, hierarchical model not because commanders simply felt the need to always be in control, but because that style of leadership is the most effective in the simple and complicated contexts in which wars were traditionally fought. However, as warfare moves into the realm of complexity, traditional models of command and control will be insufficient. Snowden and Boone warn that two traps for leaders operating in complexity are the “temptation to fall back into traditional command-and-control management styles” and the “desire for accelerated resolution of problems,” both of which must be avoided in future war.
While the Army’s publication of mission command doctrine is a recognition of the need to shift away from overly centralized management styles of leadership, many Army officers have struggled to break away from the leadership traps Snowden and Boone describe. It is critical for Army leaders to embrace mission command not because it is a superior leadership philosophy, but because it is a necessary adaptation to keep pace with the changing context and character of war. The next article in the series explores the second part of leadership’s paradoxical trinity: traits of leaders themselves. The article will describe specific leadership attributes suited for different contexts in greater detail and analyze some of the Army’s successes and failures in developing leadership attributes suited for more complex wars. As the context of war changes to become more complex, the character of military leadership must adapt as well.
From Complicated to Complex: The Changing Context of War - Modern War Institute
Editor’s note: This article is the second in a five-part series on educating Army leaders for future war. Read part one here.
The future ain’t what it used to be.
– Yogi Berra
While describing the role of friction in warfare, Carl von Clausewitz wrote that “everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.” Though war has always been and will always be very difficult, changes in the character of warfare over the past two centuries indicate that everything may not be as simple as it once was. For example, the types of problems the Russian military has struggled with during its invasion of Ukraine are not new: logistics, sustainment, achieving surprise, protecting forces, and achieving unified command are all enduring military challenges. Yet new threats from unmanned aircraft, loitering munitions, multispectral sensors, satellite imagery, cyber, and many more emerging technologies have made the successful execution of warfighting functions far more complex than they were on previous battlefields.
The increasing number of variables on the battlefield, increasing range of sensors and weapons systems, and increasing speed of decision-making are evidence of an exponential increase, rather than a linear one, in warfare’s complexity. In fact, Army Research Laboratory chief scientist Alexander Kott developed a formula to demonstrate that growth in the range and destructive capacity of weapons systems over time is exponential. Russian military leaders have proven unable to adapt to a dramatically more complex battlefield, resulting in operational failures and the deaths of senior military leaders. If American military leaders are to fare better in future wars, they must understand the increasing complexity of the battlefield far more than their Russian counterparts.
A better appreciation of the context in which war is fought, the first part of leadership’s paradoxical trinity, requires an examination of both battlefield dynamics and external factors that have impacted war through the past few centuries. The Cynefin framework, described in greater detail below, is used to categorize context. This framework is especially useful not only because it helps make sense of war’s increasing complexity, but also because it explains how different leadership attributes and styles are necessary in different contexts. As war’s character becomes increasingly complex, this framework will help show that the character of leadership must adapt alongside it.
The Cynefin Framework
There are many tools available to help make sense of context. Given the dynamic and interactive nature of war, this article employs a model that emerged from complexity science called the Cynefin framework. The Cynefin (pronounced ku-nev-in) framework divides contexts into four separate categories: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. As David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone describe, “Simple and complicated contexts assume an ordered universe, where cause-and-effect relationships are perceptible, and right answers can be determined based on the facts. Complex and chaotic contexts are unordered—there is no immediately apparent relationship between cause and effect.” Simple contexts are characterized by repeating patterns and cause-and-effect relationships that are easy to understand; this context is the realm of what former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously called “known knowns.” For example, the process for mass-producing an existing product has known variables and clear cause-and-effect relationships. Like simple contexts, complicated ones are still mechanical in that there are causal relationships between variables. However, these relationships are more difficult to discover and more numerous than simple contexts, often requiring expertise, making the context the realm of “known unknowns.” A company attempting to innovate on previous products is likely operating in a complicated context.
Unlike the mechanical dynamics of simple and complicated contexts, complex ones are adaptive. The variables and interactions between them are constantly changing, making it difficult even for experts to discern patterns. This realm of “unknown unknowns” is therefore unpredictable and a small action may produce a dramatically outsized result. The COVID pandemic is one example of a complex system, as there were too many variables that were constantly shifting to be able to predict and control exactly how the virus would adapt and spread. Chaotic contexts are shocks with high turbulence and no patterns at all. This realm is relatively rare and usually exists only for a short duration, such as in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
The Western Way of War: Historically Complicated, not Complex
In his seminal work on the history of military command aptly titled Command, Anthony King equates the function of control to mission management, which is the regulation of forces in time and space. King argues that because battles historically occurred on relatively small and well-defined battlefields, military leaders were historically preoccupied with problems of control rather than problems of command, which includes properly understanding, visualizing, and defining a mission. With mostly clear understandings of what their units were expected to accomplish in war, commanders historically focused their efforts on how to best control their forces on the battlefield. Mission control historically developed around visual and audible signals that leaders used to coordinate maneuvers on the battlefield, but unit structures, processes, and even the size of fronts endured long past the time it was necessary to communicate visually. During Napoleonic warfare, tactical commanders could visually see much of the geographic space they were responsible for and directly control subordinate elements through means like arm signals, flags, whistles, and horns. For example, Napoleon fought the Battle of Austerlitz with four corps averaging around thirteen thousand soldiers each (roughly the size of a twentieth-century Western division) on just a ten-kilometer front—an average of 2,500 meters per corps.
In World War I, French and British doctrine stated that division fronts for units on the offensive extend from 1,500 to 2,500 meters (and about twice that for the defense). New communications technologies like the telephone and telegraph allowed units to operate outside the line of sight from one another. Key weapons technologies like the machine gun created dramatically more lethal battlefields, but organizations struggled to determine the most effective ways to employ those weapons. The shift in the character of warfare from Napoleon to World War I arguably represents a move from simple to complicated contexts. Problematically, it was not only operational concepts that failed to keep pace with new technology and an increasingly complicated character of warfare, but also command philosophies that perpetuated direct managerial control of subordinate units that prevented them from innovating.
The size of a division front expanded to 4,000 to 5,000 meters in World War II. However, the role of a division commander in these conflicts remained remarkably similar to that of Napoleon’s corps commanders a century and a half before, albeit it with improved technology and more lethal weapons systems. Commanders at the division level and below were entirely concerned with matters of control; they primarily made decisions regarding short-term operations that affected a relatively small geographic space. Difficult though these fights were, they remained in the realm of complicated systems that had discernible cause-and-effect relationships.
The increased lethality and range of weapons systems steadily decreased the concentration of forces on the battlefield since Napoleon, but it was not until after World War II that the geographic space tactical units at the division level and below were responsible for began to expand. Moreover, this expansion was modest. British divisions in the 1980s, for example, were doctrinally responsible for fronts ranging from twelve to thirty kilometers and a depth that allowed them to stay in range of division artillery and high-frequency radio communications. After observing the lethality of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and seeking to combat the mass and range of Soviet weapons systems, the US Army began to place more emphasis on units operating in greater geographic spaces. Its 1982 operations manual, derived from the AirLand Battle concept, describes the need to extend the battlefield, which required decentralized execution of mission orders and the need for units to operate with greater initiative and agility. These ideas were put into practice less than a decade after the first version of the doctrine was published.
The First Gulf War represents an important inflection point in the changing character of warfare. Western armies were still primarily built for massed assaults, but the incorporation of new technologies allowed forces to distribute while still synchronizing the effects of ground forces and those of new domains like space that affected land operations. The front for the 24th Infantry Division, the XVIII Airborne Corps’s main effort, extended forty kilometers and had a depth of advance of 413 kilometers over four days. Operating at greater distances and planning for the effects of new technologies (especially those that used space and electronic warfare capabilities) on ground combat increased the complexity of the war, but military leaders were still focused on mission management rather than mission definition or motivation. The opening stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continued the dynamics from the First Gulf War—increasingly large battlefields on which commanders synchronized air, space, cyber, maritime, and electronic warfare capabilities with ground operations.
As these post-9/11 wars devolved into irregular conflicts, they challenged Western militaries’ methods of war that relied on a linear order of operations, mass, and concentration. As retired General Stanley McChrystal, who was responsible for major parts of the war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote, “The speed and interdependence of events had produced new dynamics that threatened to overwhelm the time-honored processes and culture [the US military had] built.” Tactical organizations were forced to transition from units designed to fight on a linear front of a battlefield to those that were responsible for a three-dimensional battlespace. Division staffs exploded from around forty personnel in World War II to ten times that number, in some cases topping one thousand people. In most cases, commanders had little problem exercising control over their forces as they faced a materially inferior enemy. Instead, bloated staffs and disconnects between tactical and strategic efforts reflected problems of command—leaders were often unable to properly define their missions and organize their staffs and forces to achieve lasting success.
Although command problems were largely driven by the irregular nature of the post-9/11 wars, the conflicts also provided glimpses of increasingly complex battlefields that will only be amplified during future conventional wars. Army staffs became so large in part because of operations occurring in domains other than land and because staffs had to deal with information that moved at unprecedented speeds. The proliferation of cheap but deadly technology like drones and explosives, an information environment flooded with propaganda and disinformation, hybrid operations between state and nonstate actors, and agile enemies that move faster than traditional Western militaries’ decision-making processes will be regular parts of future warfare. These dynamics will become far more complex and lethal when the adversaries are not relatively weak irregular forces but near-peer state actors with far more resources and capabilities. Leaders in future wars will again need to focus on problems of control, but they may simultaneously be presented with some of the command challenges the past two decades of war revealed. The Army has not developed to simultaneously deal with problems of command and control during the potentially hyperfast and lethal wars of the future.
The Complexity of Future Warfare
Technological changes have not only caused war to expand geographically, but conceptually as well. The need for military leaders to think holistically in terms of five domains as opposed to two is a massive change. Army leaders must understand and plan for effects not just from the ground and air, but also sea, space, and cyberspace, along with the electromagnetic spectrum and information environment. Army leaders will need more intimate knowledge of joint forces and capabilities than ever before. The requirement to orchestrate effects across multiple domains is not just a change to mission management (control), but also a shift in the very definition of what Army missions entail (command). Existing tools and processes will not be adequate for future operations. Army leaders will have to reorganize staffs, develop new skills in themselves and their subordinates, and implement new procedures for mission planning and execution. In short, the complexity of future war will require the Army to reimagine its approach to both command and control.
In the future, war between peer competitors will occur on battlefields that will likely be vast, highly lethal, and for the first time almost completely transparent. It is not only the increasing range, destructiveness, and precision of weapons that will make peer warfare so deadly, but also the arrays of multidomain sensors that will make it nearly impossible for units to obscure their positions. Such a description is not science fiction, as these dynamics were realized in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenian-backed Artsakh forces and during Russia’s 2022 escalation of its war in Ukraine. Though Artsakh forces occupied the traditionally advantageous high ground, dug their forces in, and employed physical camouflage, arrays of Azerbaijani sensors detected those forces and allowed them to be quickly destroyed with loitering munitions, drones, and precision fires. To operate on this battlefield, American forces will not only have to improve their ability to mask themselves from sensors, but also have to conduct distributed operations at a scale never before seen. Divisions could be responsible for fronts of several hundred or even several thousand kilometers, orders of magnitude greater than how they operated during the twentieth century. These units will also have to be prepared to operate without persistent communications, as networks will be denied, degraded, intermittently available, and limited.
Sensors and long-range fires are not the only key technologies that will reshape the future battlefield. Autonomous and robotic systems and the employment of tools that leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning at scale will significantly alter the composition and operational methods of military units. Formations must learn to make first contact with machines rather than humans. Reconnaissance, targeting cycles, military deception, logistics, medical treatment, and all other facets of military operations will incorporate robotic systems that have at least some abilities to operate autonomously and even learn. Commanders and staffs will have decision support tools enabled by artificial intelligence and machine learning to help with planning, potentially speeding up and altering the military decision-making process. To leverage these capabilities, the Army must change not only its doctrine and force structure, but also its personnel, training, education, and leader development programs.
More advanced weapons systems and new technologies will reshape how battles unfold, but they will also impact the human and cognitive dimensions of war. Adversaries have not only used propaganda and disinformation to amplify divisions and sow discord in American society, but they have also explicitly targeted members of the military. In the context of an armed conflict, enemies will amplify these efforts and capitalize on deepfake technology to undermine America’s security alliances, erode trust within military formations, and weaken support from the American public. These effects could not only slow decision cycles, which would have lethal consequences, but also erode the public support that is necessary for a democracy to sustain a protracted effort and craft a coherent strategy.
Individually, each of these developments may seem like steps along a linear evolution path. But the net effect of these changes is greater than the sum of its parts, resulting in an exponential increase in the complexity of future war.
Adapting Army Leadership for Complexity
The modern US Army evolved from a force designed to mass forces for two-dimensional fights in the land domain like the Civil War. The advent of military aviation forced Army leaders to operate in a second domain and think three-dimensionally, but Army leaders in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the First Gulf War still primarily thought in geospatial terms. Though the Army has changed both between and since these conflicts, elements like staff structures and the exercise of military command have remained remarkably constant. As battlefield tactics and operations shift from relatively concentrated fights on land to broadly distributed forces attempting to synchronize effects in multiple domains that defy spatial thinking, the Army should resist the temptation to revert to its traditional comfort zone of linear, two-dimensional operations. Instead, basic fundamentals should be reexamined, including the principles of war, staff structures, and perhaps most importantly, leadership.
Developing new ways for the Army to operate, organize, and equip will not be effective if the Army does not deliberately train soldiers to lead on complex and dynamic battlefields. Military command historically developed in a top-down, hierarchical model not because commanders simply felt the need to always be in control, but because that style of leadership is the most effective in the simple and complicated contexts in which wars were traditionally fought. However, as warfare moves into the realm of complexity, traditional models of command and control will be insufficient. Snowden and Boone warn that two traps for leaders operating in complexity are the “temptation to fall back into traditional command-and-control management styles” and the “desire for accelerated resolution of problems,” both of which must be avoided in future war.
While the Army’s publication of mission command doctrine is a recognition of the need to shift away from overly centralized management styles of leadership, many Army officers have struggled to break away from the leadership traps Snowden and Boone describe. It is critical for Army leaders to embrace mission command not because it is a superior leadership philosophy, but because it is a necessary adaptation to keep pace with the changing context and character of war. The next article in the series explores the second part of leadership’s paradoxical trinity: traits of leaders themselves. The article will describe specific leadership attributes suited for different contexts in greater detail and analyze some of the Army’s successes and failures in developing leadership attributes suited for more complex wars. As the context of war changes to become more complex, the character of military leadership must adapt as well.
Cole Livieratos is an Army strategist currently assigned to the Directorate of Concepts at Army Futures Command. He holds a PhD in international relations, is a nonresident fellow at the Modern War Institute, and is a term member at the Council on Foreign Relations. Follow him on Twitter @LiveCole1.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Army Futures Command, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Sgt. Timothy Hamlin, US Army
22. A Measure of American Decline
Excerpts:
The Biden administration’s main economic initiative was a list of vague promises to “foster innovation,” build supply chains, create clean-energy jobs, and other generic offerings; an official acknowledged that the plan, with the grandiose title of the “Partnership for Economic Prosperity,” was not even discussed with other countries before the summit.
On the summit’s final day, the U.S. announced a series of “bold actions” that several countries would take on immigration issues, yet many of them were not new and others were modest—the U.S. said, for example, that it would resettle 20,000 refugees from the hemisphere over a two-year period, but that number pales beside the more than 200,000 migrants who have been crossing the U.S.’s southern border each month.
The administration had ample time to prepare for the summit, even with the pandemic and the war in Ukraine holding its attention, and the complications of Latin America’s particular set of challenges, including populist leaders such as AMLO and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, who have competing interests. Yet the summit made clear how much the U.S.’s ability to form coherent policies toward its neighbors is handcuffed by domestic issues.
The economic plan amounted to a recitation of progressive talking points that seemed aimed more at segments of the Democratic base than at hemispheric leaders or their populations. The insistence on addressing immigration reflected unresolved domestic debates. And even the guest list, despite the administration’s insistence that it was about bigger issues of democracy versus autocracy, was a response to domestic political pressures: Were Biden to have invited Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, there would be hell to pay in Florida and in Congress.
A Measure of American Decline
The Summit of the Americas, hosted this year by Joe Biden, offers a measure of how far the U.S. has fallen.
As the golden light bled from the Los Angeles sky one evening last week, a mariachi band played at a rooftop cocktail party for corporate executives and government officials from a couple dozen countries. They had gathered on the eve of the Summit of the Americas, an every-few-years meeting that would begin in the city the following day. With a flare of trumpets, the band launched into “El Rey,” the Mexican ranchera classic of wounded machismo. “I don’t have a throne or a queen,” the lead mariachi sang, “or anyone who understands me. But I’m still the king.”
Or anyone who understands me. The song could have been the theme to President Joe Biden’s week.
If a group of unusually prescient political scientists had wanted to design a mechanism to measure the decline of U.S. influence and stature, they might have created the Summit of the Americas. First hosted by Bill Clinton in Miami in 1994, that inaugural meeting marked a moment of U.S. ascendency, as America stood atop a unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Latin America was also going through a transformation, no longer a region of military dictatorships: Nearly every country had a democratically elected government, and many were eager to work with Washington.
But last week in Los Angeles—the first time the gathering had been held in the U.S. since the original event in Miami—the summit came across as a showcase of U.S. dysfunction and lowered ambition. The planning was chaotic and even the guest list became a needless source of controversy: Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the Mexican leader popularly known as AMLO, refused to attend because the White House did not invite the dictator presidents of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela—a violation, in his eyes, of the principle of hemispheric solidarity. At times there was more attention on those who were absent than on those who were present. “We’ve got the mariachis,” a tech executive at the twilight cocktail party quipped to me, “but we don’t have AMLO.”
In the afternoon the day of that rooftop gathering, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at an event touting the Partnership for Central America, an initiative she helped create to address the root causes of mass migration to the U.S. from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In its first year, she said, the group had channeled more than $3 billion of corporate investment into projects that included increasing access to the internet and banking services. What she didn’t mention was that the presidents of all three countries had boycotted the summit.
It didn’t have to be this way.
Richard Feinberg, a former National Security Council official who came up with the idea for the original summit and helped organize it, told me that senior Clinton administration officials spent almost a year in intensive consultations with other governments, fine-tuning policy proposals and working to address issues raised. Extra work was done to massage egos and make sure that the two largest Latin American countries, Brazil and Mexico, understood that they would play a meaningful role.
None of that seemed to occur with this year’s meeting, which close observers said was marked by poor planning and a lack of preparation. Despite daunting challenges, such as countering the growing influence of China and Russia and addressing deep poverty, which has been exacerbated by the pandemic, the proposals that would normally have been hashed out in detail months ahead of time were, in many cases, slapped together late in the process and not shared in advance with other nations. The whole enterprise evoked the image of a privileged but lazy student who figures he can get an A on the test even if he doesn’t study or do his homework. On the final day, a South American diplomat summed up the meeting in a word: “improvised.”
The guest-list flap was a glaring example. The White House said that the summit was for democratic governments only, and yet it engaged in weeks of hand-wringing over the participation of the autocratic leaders of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, waiting until just days before the summit to definitively say that they would be excluded. AMLO, playing to his own leftist base at home, declared that he would not attend.
When he was vice president, Biden made 16 trips to Latin America as Barack Obama’s liaison to the region. He was now reduced to begging for countries to attend his summit: AMLO ignored multiple entreaties to soften his stance; Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refused to even take calls from U.S. officials in the days ahead of the summit; and Xiomara Castro, the Honduran president—whose inauguration Harris attended in January—stayed away as well. The leaders of Bolivia, Guatemala, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines also opted out.
“The administration did an own goal by its late planning, allowing this brouhaha about who came and who didn’t to be the dominant story,” Steve Liston, a former State Department official who was involved in organizing several summits and is now a senior director of the Council of the Americas, a lobbying group that promotes free trade, told me. “It was as it appeared to be: put together at the last minute. And the main significance of that is that the region was left with the feeling that the U.S. didn’t care.”
The same applied to the smattering of low-wattage proposals that the administration brought to the summit. Gabriel Silva Luján, who twice served as Colombia’s ambassador in Washington and has attended three Summits of the Americas, including the first one, recalled how the first summit was energized by the fall of the Berlin Wall and hopes for a region-wide free-trade agreement. “If the first summit was a summit of hope that generated great expectations, this is a summit that generates great frustrations,” he told me, speaking by phone from Bogotá. “It doesn’t have a big dream, and that makes the summit very poor.”
The Biden administration’s main economic initiative was a list of vague promises to “foster innovation,” build supply chains, create clean-energy jobs, and other generic offerings; an official acknowledged that the plan, with the grandiose title of the “Partnership for Economic Prosperity,” was not even discussed with other countries before the summit.
On the summit’s final day, the U.S. announced a series of “bold actions” that several countries would take on immigration issues, yet many of them were not new and others were modest—the U.S. said, for example, that it would resettle 20,000 refugees from the hemisphere over a two-year period, but that number pales beside the more than 200,000 migrants who have been crossing the U.S.’s southern border each month.
The administration had ample time to prepare for the summit, even with the pandemic and the war in Ukraine holding its attention, and the complications of Latin America’s particular set of challenges, including populist leaders such as AMLO and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, who have competing interests. Yet the summit made clear how much the U.S.’s ability to form coherent policies toward its neighbors is handcuffed by domestic issues.
The economic plan amounted to a recitation of progressive talking points that seemed aimed more at segments of the Democratic base than at hemispheric leaders or their populations. The insistence on addressing immigration reflected unresolved domestic debates. And even the guest list, despite the administration’s insistence that it was about bigger issues of democracy versus autocracy, was a response to domestic political pressures: Were Biden to have invited Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, there would be hell to pay in Florida and in Congress.
Biden is beholden to Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a hawk on issues related to the three countries; inviting any of those leaders would alienate a key vote in an evenly divided Senate.
Even U.S. warnings about democratic backsliding in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Brazil appeared to some to be driven by concerns over threats to democracy at home. “The way that officials talked about it,” said Liston, the former State Department official, “it was clear they were talking about January 6.”
“Take any issue. If you’re talking about trade policy, we can’t decide if trade’s a good thing or a bad thing. Do we want immigrants or not?” said Feinberg, the former NSC official. All that leads to an incoherent mash-up of timid half-measures or initiatives that exist to either please or avoid riling up some interest group, regardless of their effectiveness or likelihood of success. “The root causes of a flaccid inter-American diplomacy,” Feinberg said, “is dysfunctional domestic politics.”
The last time I covered a Summit of the Americas, in 2012, I spent most of my time in the brothels that line the port of Cartagena, Colombia.
The summit that year was overshadowed by a scandal involving Obama’s Secret Service detail. An advance team of agents was sent home after some of them took prostitutes to their hotel rooms. When one of the agents refused to pay, the prostitute protested and word leaked out.
It became my job to look for the prostitute who had slept with the agent who was too cheap to pay. When I finally found her, she told me that she wanted me to understand that she was a high-class escort, not a streetwalker. She had dignity. She was an iPhone, she told me, not a Nokia.
Colombians saw in the tawdry affair an echo of the stereotypical gringo attitude toward Latin America: self-centered and callous. In the relationship between the Americas, the U.S. dictates the terms.
There was some of that as well in the reaction to the L.A. summit, with its slapdash planning and the way that U.S. domestic politics infiltrated the agenda.
Over the summit’s two and a half days, as the presidents in attendance gave speeches in the main meeting hall at the Los Angeles Convention Center, two summits seemed to be going on simultaneously. In one, Biden and his officials were pushing proposals that seemed geared more toward a U.S. audience than a hemispheric one. In the other, Latin American leaders emphasized an alternate set of issues: They spoke about poverty and inequality; the economic impact of rising inflation; the cost of food, fuel and fertilizers; and rising debt burdens on their countries, which had to cope with a set of problems they had not caused, including climate change, arms trafficking, and the economic effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine. And many of them scolded Biden over his choice to exclude the region’s nondemocratic governments.
“When we disagree, we need to be able to speak to each other face-to-face,” said the young Chilean President Gabriel Boric. He called for both the freeing of political prisoners in Nicaragua and the end of the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
Biden, in his speech, sounded the correct notes, saying that he planned to listen to other leaders and that he wanted them all to work together. “No matter what else is happening in the world,” he said, “the Americas will always be the priority for the United States of America.” As they say in Venezuela: “Del dicho al hecho hay mucho trecho.” It’s a long way between words and deeds.
Clinton’s summit in 1994 featured a spectacular “Concert of the Americas.” The White House enlisted Quincy Jones to organize the event, and the program listed more than 40 star performers. It featured a salsa jam session that included Celia Cruz, Tito Puente, Liza Minnelli, Paul Anka, Gloria Estefan, Rita Marley, Kenny G, and others. Morgan Freeman and Michael Douglas made appearances, and Maya Angelou read a poem.
Biden’s summit had its own dollop of culture. Despite taking place a short drive from Hollywood, however, it lacked the star power of Clinton’s. The opening ceremony featured just five musical numbers, most of them chosen to emphasize optimism and interdependence. The United States Marine Band accompanied a few singers and acrobats from Cirque du Soleil in a treacly version of “Lean on Me.” Sheila E. (who performed at the 1994 summit) gave a spirited rendition of the Beatles’ “Come Together.”
There was one exception to the night’s theme. Alex Fernández, the grandson of the ranchera icon Vicente Fernández, sang “El Rey,” the same song the mariachis had sung at the rooftop cocktail party: the ultimate ballad for loners.
Biden listened from the front row and smiled.
23. The future of US security depends on owning the ‘gray zone.’ Biden must get it right.
To review.
Gray Zone writings:
•2010 QDR, page 73 – “gray area phenomena”
•Gen Votel March 2015 Congressional testimony
•DEPSECDEF Robert Work April 2015 Army War College
•USSOCOM White Paper September 2015
•Mike Mazarr December 2015 7 Hypotheses of the Gray Zone
•Hal Brands February 2016 Paradoxes of the Gray Zone
•Frank Hoffman 2016 The Contemporary Spectrum of Conflict
•Joseph L. Votel, Charles T. Cleveland, Charles T. Connett, and Will Irwin January 2016 UW in the Gray Zone
•Autilio Echevarrio April 2016 Operating in the Gray Zone
•Nathan Freier, et el, Army War College, June 2016, Outplayed Regaining the Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone
•Adam Elkus December 2015 You Cannot Save the Gray Zone Concept
The future of US security depends on owning the ‘gray zone.’ Biden must get it right.
Conventional military superiority once guaranteed the security of the United States and its allies—but no more. Adversaries like Russia and China have learned that if they cannot compete with the United States conventionally, they can undermine US security in the cyber, economic, and information domains through offensive activities in the “gray zone,” or the space between peace (or cooperation) and war (or armed conflict).
After decades of relying on its conventional power, the United States lacks a comprehensive strategy to align gray-zone activities with the national goals it aims to achieve. More complicated still, this term is ill-defined—if even acknowledged—in US and allied strategies, creating an obstacle to further dialogue and policy action. Current efforts are uncoordinated across the executive branch and relevant stakeholders, and the desired end state is unclear.
The Biden administration, for its part, acknowledges the strategic imperative to effectively compete in the gray zone with concepts like integrated deterrence, which is aimed at integrating all instruments of power “across the spectrum of conflict.” Now, the forthcoming National Security Strategy (NSS), National Defense Strategy (NDS), and Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) provide an opportunity to unite national efforts to deal with these nonmilitary security challenges.
But those documents must articulate how acting in the gray zone will advance national objectives, and how US government entities can better coordinate to deter aggression in nonmilitary spaces.
Adversaries at work
China and Russia have long integrated gray-zone operations into their strategies.
In 1999, for example, two Chinese military strategists penned a paper called “Unrestricted Warfare,” proposing the continuous use of nonmilitary operations to compensate for US military superiority. That was followed in 2003 by “The Three Warfares,” which zeroes in on information-related warfare using psychological, public opinion, and legal means. And in what has been described as the Gerasimov Doctrine, Russia fuses military and non-military means to spur chaos. This was on display before and during Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, when Russian hackers targeted Ukrainian government and private sites with malware and distributed denial-of-service attacks.
It is important to note the different approaches and goals of the United States’ two main adversaries in the gray zone: While China hopes to make the world safer for its brand of authoritarianism, Russia aims to weaken NATO and command its former Soviet “near abroad.”
Yet both routinely leverage many forms of statecraft to undermine the rules-based international order, setting the tone for future contestation in the gray zone. These activities directly and intentionally strike pressure points within the target state’s society and across their alliances. When Moscow meddled in the 2016 US election, for example, it exploited fault lines in American democracy; and when nations adopt Huawei 5G, they compromise their own physical and digital infrastructure.
More broadly, the gray zone blurs the otherwise clear-cut distinction between threats at home and abroad, underscoring the reality that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary—at least in non-physical spaces such as the cyber and information domains. While the United States’ geographic location has proved historically advantageous—bordered by allies and flanked by international waters that protect it from attack—digital and physical infrastructure advancements and enhanced global connectivity have rendered these barriers obsolete when attacked by non-physical means.
Gray zone attacks can (and have) challenged international stability while simultaneously hitting closer to home, exploiting societal cleavages and domestic vulnerabilities. If the United States continues to view homeland defense and global interests separately, it leaves a blind spot for competitors to exploit.
Coordinate to win
With the Biden administration set to publish the unclassified versions of its NSS, NDS, and QHSR—the strategic documents that will guide US government policy for the next few years—now is the time to coordinate national gray-zone activities across agencies. The devil, however, is in the details: The executive branch must clearly articulate the objectives of its gray-zone and counter-gray-zone activity and how this fits within broader national-security goals (as well as identifying who has authority over what).
The 2021 Interim National Strategic Guidance, a prelude to the NSS, recognizes a need to “develop capabilities to better compete and deter gray zone actions” within the defense budget. Additionally, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) newly released fact sheet, which previews the 2022 NDS, calls for unified action across “the spectrum of conflict” and the need to leverage “other instruments of U.S. national power.”
The administration’s attention to non-military tools provides a viable starting point for deliberate coordination in the gray zone, embracing the changing character of warfare and the need to compete off the physical battlefield. But coordination across US departments is critical to responding to threats in the gray zone, and the seemingly disjointed drafting of forthcoming strategies—including Biden’s NSS, NDS, and QHSR—represents a missed opportunity for doing so.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States recognized the need to unify fragmented intelligence and counterterrorism functions to deal with the violent extremist threat. Today, it faces a similarly fragmented picture of gray-zone threats that, if left unresolved, could create critical security gaps. The United States cannot wait for a crippling cyberattack or a pronounced disinformation campaign before laying the groundwork for coordination. Many US agencies and departments have authorities in the gray zone: DoD houses offensive unconventional military and cyber capabilities, while the Intelligence Community possesses a nuanced picture of the threat environment. The Department of Homeland Security harnesses regulatory abilities, the Department of State houses diplomatic tools, and the departments of Commerce and Treasury wield sanctioning authority.
But to align efforts and goals, an official coordination mechanism is required. This authority should sit within the National Security Council and be tasked with managing gray-zone activity across the executive branch. This includes responsibility for pulling together information from—and promoting intelligence-sharing across—disparate US agencies, yielding a holistic intelligence picture, and centralizing command and control. Moreover, the coordinating mechanism should include military and civilian decision-making authority to respond to gray-zone threats and be trusted with evaluating US efforts.
The US government must better define who does what, when, and how—lest it fail to provide the comprehensive response needed to thwart malign activity in the gray zone. A changing security landscape requires the United States to radically rethink its competition with Russia and China. National strategies like the NSS, NDS, and QHSR are the right places to start—but gray-zone conflict is a whole-of-nation problem, and the United States’ ability to prevail will hinge on coordinating and executing a whole-of-nation response.
Clementine G. Starling is a resident fellow and deputy director of the Forward Defense practice at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.
Julia Siegel is a program assistant with Forward Defense.
24. Ukraine Will Survive and the US is Preparing to Arm it for Years, Says Pentagon’s Hicks
Finally, unlike Moriarty, the DEPSECDEF gives us some "positive waves"
Ukraine Will Survive and the US is Preparing to Arm it for Years, Says Pentagon’s Hicks
Deputy Defense Secretary Hicks discusses Russia, China, and inflation’s effects on the Pentagon’s buying power at the 7th Annual Defense One Tech Summit.
U.S. defense leaders believe Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and are already planning on how to arm the country for the long-term, said the Pentagon’s No. 2 civilian official.
“I think what we can assure ourselves today is that there will be a country called Ukraine. It will be a sovereign country and that country will have a military that will need to defend it,” Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said Monday. “And so as we look ahead, we're thinking through what are the kinds of capabilities that the Ukrainians need to protect themselves over the long term.”
Facing the challenge of supporting Ukraine, modernizing the U.S. military to deter China and doing so in the midst of rising inflation and a possible recession, the Pentagon’s No. 2 civilian leader laid out how the Defense Department is attempting to tackle multiple unprecedented challenges at once, in an exclusive interview during the 7th annual Defense One Tech Summit.
The United States announced two weeks ago that it would begin sending long-range artillery systems, helicopters, and other additional heavy weapons to Ukraine as part of a new $700 million arms package. But, said Hicks, the department is also trying to take a longer-term approach to supporting Ukraine, five, 10, and 20 years into the future.
“We're certainly thinking through the pieces that go into that with all the lessons we have developing out and aiding, advising and assisting… a partner nation, in this case Ukraine. I do think we are well equipped to do that. So are many of our allies and friends, and we're working together now to decide what's the best pathway forward.” She said continued support would go beyond just arms. “We’re trying to think through the kinds of both equipment but also the any kind of longer term training and defense establishment efforts that they will need.”
Ukraine’s Olga Stefanishyna, deputy prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, told Defense One two weeks ago that those needs included more long-range fires and other equipment and weapons systems, like drones. Perhaps most important, she said, is that there’s a logistics system and a plan in place to make sure the West can continue to supply Ukraine promptly for the foreseeable future.
“There are priority weapons we need, but even more important is to have the continuous, coordinated and timely … delivery,” she said during the GLOBSEC Bratislava Forum in Slovakia “If there is a gap between political agreement and actual implementation, the support comes as a gift that is not acceptable in times of war.”
Hicks is also charged with helping the Pentagon to modernize in the midst of major economic headwinds. She said that, so far, record inflation numbers have not yet shown a “substantial” effect on the Pentagon’s “buying power” but she’s watching how it might affect the timing and schedule of acquisition programs and projects.
“I do anticipate we'll see them in the longer term,” she said. “Schedule is one of those things I'm really paying attention to—to start to see if we have—where we have many firm-fixed-price contracts, for example, where it may not be that we see a price increase because it's a firm fixed price contract, but we might see schedule slips, and that could be supply chain, it could be workforce related, etc…”
25. US is building ‘exclusive’ club to confront, contain China
US is building ‘exclusive’ club to confront, contain China
SINGAPORE — China’s defense minister has slammed America’s approach to the Indo-Pacific region, calling it “a strategy to create conflict and confrontation, to contain and encircle others.”
Speaking at a plenary session at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Gen. Wei Fenghe said the strategy is “an attempt to build an exclusive, small group in the name of a free and open Indo-Pacific” and to hijack regional countries to be used to target “one specific country.”
Wei also defended China’s development and growth at the event, which was hosted by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies and took place June 10-12. China is building up its military strength and has created artificial islands, despite international pressure. He noted that the country’s progress was not achieved through colonialism and is not a threat.
As a juxtaposition, he pointed to China’s provision of COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world, deployment of personnel for U.N. peacekeeping missions and contribution toward anti-piracy efforts around Africa.
Wei also touched on the self-governed island of Taiwan, which Beijing considers a rogue province and has vowed to reincorporate, by force if necessary. The minister criticized the Taiwan Relations Act as a “domestic law [used] to interfere in the internal affairs of another country.”
The U.S. legislation, passed by Congress in 1979, obligates the U.S. to supply arms to Taiwan that are deemed necessary for the latter’s self-defense. But the U.S. government has also stated it is officially opposed to Taiwanese independence, instead seeking to maintain the status quo.
Wei decried the current Democratic Progressive Party government of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, accusing it of seeking “incremental” independence and ignoring the 1992 consensus. The consensus was the result of a meeting between semiofficial representatives of China and Taiwan, with some claiming both sides agreed there is one China, while others disagree an agreement was reached.
Wei also maintained China’s approach toward the war in Ukraine, refusing to call it the result of a Russian invasion and instead expressing regret at ongoing events and reiterating that Beijing respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, as well as the “legitimate security concerns” of nations.
He cryptically asked who is benefitting from the current situation, while criticizing arms transfers, which he said prolong the conflict, and saying “maximum pressure” through sanctions will not bring an end to the conflict.
He did not answer directly, instead discussing in general terms the People’s Liberation Army’s nuclear forces and its posture. He said the nuclear weapons on display at the 2019 military parade in Beijing were introduced into service. He also reiterated China’s nuclear arsenal is for self-defense, noting the country would not be the first to use such weapons.
Mike Yeo is the Asia correspondent for Defense News. He wrote his first defense-related magazine article in 1998 before pursuing an aerospace engineering degree at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia. Following a stint in engineering, he became a freelance defense reporter in 2013 and has written for several media outlets.
26. President Zelensky: Tell people in the occupied territories that the Ukrainian army will come
President Zelensky's master class in strategic communications continues.
President Zelensky: Tell people in the occupied territories that the Ukrainian army will come
The relevant statement was made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his video address, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.
The full text of the speech is provided below:
Strong people of an unbreakable country!
Today is the 110th day of our defense. And when you say that - the 110th day - you realize what a great path we have covered. The enemy was driven out of the Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy regions. A large part of the Kharkiv region was liberated. In total, more than a thousand settlements have been liberated.
The invasion of the occupiers in the south of Ukraine was stopped. Yes, they still want to destroy Mykolaiv, Zaporizhzhia, and the cities of the Dnipropetrovsk region. They still have enough strength to shoot from the artillery at Zelenodolsk and Hulyaipole. Odesa remains a target for the Russian fleet...
But dozens of the attacking attempts of the Russian army have already been thwarted right there in the south. And thanks to the counteroffensive, some communities in the Kherson region have already been liberated.
In the battles in Donbas - and they will surely go down in military history as one of the most brutal battles in Europe and for Europe - the Ukrainian army and our intelligence tactically still beat the Russian military. And this is despite the significant advantage of the Russians in the amount of equipment, and especially - artillery systems.
The price of this battle for us is very high. It’s just scary. And we draw the attention of our partners on a daily basis to the fact that only a sufficient number of modern artillery for Ukraine will ensure our advantage and finally the end of Russian torture of the Ukrainian Donbas.
Today it became known about the death of another child caused by the Russian shelling - right there, right in Donbas, in the Luhansk region. The boy was born in 2016. He lived in Lysychansk, in an ordinary house on Moskovska Street. This is it: a six-year-old boy on Moskovska Street is also, as it turned out, a dangerous enemy for the Russian Federation...
We are dealing with absolute evil. And we have no choice but to move on. Free our entire territory. Drive the occupiers out of all our regions. And although now the width of our front is already more than 2.5 thousand kilometers, it is felt that the strategic initiative is still ours.
We will come to all our cities, to all our villages, which do not yet have our flag on the administrative buildings. Although there are a lot of Ukrainian flags there, in people’s houses, I'm sure of it. And we have already seen them when people protested against the occupiers. And we will see them again - everywhere, when we return.
We will come to Kherson. And ordinary Kherson residents will meet our army on the streets of the city. The failure of the occupiers, who tried to celebrate the so-called Russia Day, only proves that Kherson is a Ukrainian city. And Kherson residents will celebrate only Ukrainian holidays.
We will come to Melitopol. And we will return to all Melitopol residents the opportunity to live without fear. And, by the way, all the collaborators who are now threatening to take away land from farmers in Melitopol and other districts of Zaporizhzhia will most likely end up in this land themselves.
We will come to Mariupol. And we will liberate the city for the third time. It was liberated from the Nazis in 1943 by a brilliant operation. In 2014, on this day, June 13, thanks to the courage of our "Azov" and other units, Mariupol was liberated for the second time. Liberated from the militants, who at that time were not yet fully aware of what the Russian state was sending them to. And now they see it all. They see burned Mariupol. They see why the Russians came there. But we will not allow them to make this city dead. We will return it. Definitely.
It only takes enough weapons to make it happen. The partners have it. In sufficient quantities. And we work every day for the political will to give us these weapons to appear.
We will come to Enerhodar. And I want to repeat to everyone in the city who took to the streets against the Russian military, who refuses to cooperate with the occupiers and who is waiting for us today. I want to repeat that we have not forgotten about our Enerhodar for a day.
We must understand that the occupiers are keeping the occupied territory not just in an information blockade. I would call it a civilizational blockade.
They are trying to make people not just know nothing about Ukraine and how we are trying to liberate our territory. They are trying to make them stop even thinking about returning to normal life, forcing them to reconcile. In some areas, the occupiers are deliberately preventing the restoration of electricity supply. In many communities, they simply blocked communication. Our television is being turned off. They closed the exit from the occupation and simply do not even allow humanitarian corridors so that we can bring people at least basic goods and medicines.
And I ask everyone who has such an opportunity to communicate with people in the occupied south, in Donbas, in the Kharkiv region. Tell them about Ukraine. Tell them the truth. Say that there will be liberation. Say it to Kyrylivka, Henichesk, Berdyansk, Manhush. Say it to Horlivka, Donetsk, Luhansk. Say it to everyone in the Kharkiv region who is still forced to see the Russian flag on our Ukrainian land. Tell them that the Ukrainian army will definitely come.
Of course, we will liberate our Crimea as well. The flag of Ukraine will fly again over Yalta and Sudak, over Dzhankoi and Yevpatoriya. And let every Russian official who has seized precious land in Crimea remember: this is not the land where they will have peace.
There is no one today who will say exactly how long our path to victory will take. But the vast majority of people today are already aware - this is our path. This is how this war will end.
We will rebuild everything that was destroyed by the occupiers. From Volnovakha to Chortkiv. Because this is Ukraine. And it is our destiny to return and strengthen it.
I am proud of all our defenders! Eternal glory to you!
Eternal memory to everyone whose life was taken by the occupiers!
Glory to Ukraine!
27. China’s ‘Particle Beam Cannon’ Is a Nuclear-Power Breakthrough
A game changer?
China’s ‘Particle Beam Cannon’ Is a Nuclear-Power Breakthrough
It promises to recycle spent nuclear fuel, making it cheaper and less dangerous—and moving Beijing toward energy independence.
The prototype “particle beam cannon” recently completed by Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Modern Physics may sound like science fiction, but it is a novel new technology that promises to recycle dangerous waste produced by a nuclear reactor. A product of China’s huge investment in advanced nuclear-energy systems, the breakthrough could move the country toward energy independence and further cement its global leadership in climate-friendly technology.
In a typical fission reactor, atoms of heavy isotopes such as uranium-235 are broken apart, releasing energy. The process also releases extra neutrons, which collide with other atoms and break them apart in a chain reaction. The broken atoms are spent fuel that is cooled for a few years and then carefully stored for a few centuries. But a proposed new type of reactor built with this “cannon”—formally, a proton accelerator—could recycle this spent fuel, making it cheaper and safer to generate electricity.
As envisioned, an accelerator-driven system, or ADS, consists of three parts: the proton accelerator launches protons, the spallation target contains the heavy element to be split, and the sub-critical reactor contains the fuel which causes fission. The accelerator fires protons at a heavy element (most likely bismuth) surrounded by a blanket of spent fuel and fresh fissile material (most likely thorium-232 or uranium-238). The target splits apart, releasing neutrons that are absorbed by the spent fuel, turning it back into fissile heavy isotopes—that is, fresh nuclear fuel. Importantly, this process is self-terminating, and does not run the risk of a chain reaction or a meltdown. The Institute of Modern Physics’ completion of a prototype accelerator is a big step toward a working ADS, and a prime example of China’s huge investment in advanced nuclear energy systems paying dividends in new innovations.
Unlike numerous governments that have abandoned nuclear energy entirely, China sees fission as key to a more secure future. Nuclear power is more efficient than wind or solar, and unlike fossil fuels, it does not emit greenhouse gases and particulate air pollution. Ranked second in the world for daily oil consumption, China’s inexorable demand for ever more energy places it in a precarious position. Upwards of 70% of China’s petroleum comes from imports, primarily from the Middle East, and must transit numerous maritime chokepoints. China is slated to spend $440 billion between now and 2035 to build at least 150 more nuclear reactors. If China can continue to develop ADS technology, the waste from these plants can be put to good use and be recycled to produce even more energy for its growing needs.
Beijing is also aiming to reduce the possibility of radiological leaks and uncontrolled chain reactions by developing new and inherently safer systems. While the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters are the most famous examples of what can go wrong, China too faced its own issues in June of 2021 when the Taishan nuclear power plant in Guangdong Province had a possible radiation leak from failed fuel rods. China plans to spend nearly $10 billion on a new generation of ocean-bound floating nuclear power plants, while also exploring nuclear fusion as a safer alternative to fission.
China is outspending the United States in the nuclear sphere. Since 2009, the Department of Energy has awarded less than $900 million to improve nuclear infrastructure and resilience. It was major news, by the standards of the U.S. nuclear community, when the DOE announced an additional $48.8 million for the Nuclear Energy University Program, including $24 million for fuel-cycle research and development. There may be additional money for nuclear projects in the DOE’s $20 billion Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, intended to innovate new energy sources.
Currently, two new plants are being built in the United States, the Vogtle Units 3 & 4 near Waynesboro, Georgia, while another, the NuScale reactor, is still in the planning phase. Before this, the most recent nuclear plants in the United States opened in 1996 and 2016, respectively. At the same time, 21 nuclear reactors are currently being decommissioned in the United States. Although improving technology has kept nuclear energy’s share of the country’s electricity at around 20 percent, the current outlook for the U.S. 2050 energy portfolio shows a marked decline in nuclear’s share.
China’s work on its particle-beam accelerator and ADS is of importance to the country’s industry, its energy strategy, and its global leadership in a wider range of issues, from technology to climate change. If the United States continues to invest in innovation, such new options and techniques may become viable for it as well. Most experts agree that advanced sources of nuclear energy enabled by approaches like ADS are far safer than their predecessors and could prove critical to the world meeting its climate goals in the coming decades. While China is certainly racing towards a goal of energy leadership, that doesn’t mean it is the only one that can benefit.
Thomas Corbett is a research analyst with BluePath Labs. His areas of focus include Chinese foreign relations, emerging technology, and international economics.
P.W. Singer is Strategist at New America.
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Senior Advisor, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647