|
Quotes of the Day:
"Happiness is not something readymade. It comes from your own actions."
–Dalai Lama
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers."
– Voltaire
"Repetition is the only form of permanence that nature can achieve."
–George Santayana
1. Political warfare: the obvious choice against our Maginot Line
2. Call for Papers Irregular Warfare
3. Xi Jinping tightens grip on China’s military with new information warfare unit
4. US troops set to withdraw from Niger, State Department official says
5. Congress Must Support Ukraine And Israel—Our Interests Depend On It
6. G-7 Warns China Against Aiding Russia in Its War Against Ukraine
7. Opinion | The unspoken story of why Israel didn’t clobber Iran
8. G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships
9. A team of bitter rivals is making Israel’s most crucial war decisions
10. Ukraine weapons package ‘ready to go’ once aid bill clears Congress
11. Sizing up the China-Russia 'New Axis'
12. Opinion | Biden’s ‘bear hug’ with Israel pays off with a minimal strike on Iran
13. Political Warfare and Congress - Testimony to Oversight Committee, “Defending America from the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Warfare, Part I” Professor Timothy Snyder
14. Iran’s Nuclear Calculus Has Now Become More Dangerous
15. Losing Ukraine Isn’t Necessary
16. Iran’s Threat Emerges Into Daylight
17. Beijing warns US after missile launcher reaches "China's doorstep"
18. China building new outpost on U.S. Doorstep, leaked documents reveal
19. 'New Axis of Evil' conflicts threaten US upheaval on eve of election
20. Beijing waging political warfare against government, business, experts tell House oversight panel
21. Interview: The Three-Body Problem author Liu Cixin “My novel is not a metaphor for US-China tensions”
22. The Big Five - April 20 Edition by Mick Ryan
23. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 19, 202
24. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, April 19, 2024
1. Political warfare: the obvious choice against our Maginot Line
This is just another great essay from one of our nation's true experts on all things related public diplomacy, information and influence, psychological operations ,and political warfare, Matt Armstrong.
Hopefully this will make the light bulb go on in the minds of some:
Even if you’re not interested in political warfare, political warfare may be interested in you. I wrote “maybe” because a neat trick of political warfare is the ability to bypass or neutralize resistance, like an island-hopping campaign.
We must get better at political warfare if we want to be successful in strategic competition.
This is going to become a seminal reference in my writings.
I recommend that people read and reread this paragraph at least a dozen times.
It is useful to know that Russia and China, among others, would be dumb not to wage political warfare against our interests and those of our democratic allies. Political warfare is inexpensive, especially relative to traditional warfare. Munitions, which include but go well beyond mere “information,” are cheap. The damage to physical infrastructure from political warfare is virtually or completely nil compared to a traditional invasion. If we want to be glib, we can throw in that political warfare is environmentally friendly. Political warfare is tolerant of mistakes and missteps. It allows for multiple and simultaneous, even potentially contradictory, lines of effort along multiple fronts, audiences, and territories. Further, political warfare can result in a deeper and longer-lasting positive result without post-invasion reconstruction, occupation troops, or possibly a directly appointed viceroy, depending on the objective.
And I think this is the best definition of political warfare I have found:
My definition of political warfare is derived primarily from Burnham:
Political warfare is the expression of power for hostile intent through discrete, subversive, or overt means, short of open combat, onto another. It is not mere rivalry or competition, it may have strategic or tactical objectives, and it may operate in one or more areas—political, societal, economic, psychological, or other—that are available for exploitation to affect change.
Political warfare: the obvious choice against our Maginot Line
https://mountainrunner.substack.com/p/political-warfare-the-obvious-choice?utm=
Our ignorance isn't new and our failure to respond isn't because USIA was abolished
MATT ARMSTRONG
APR 19, 2024
Let me restate – again – that our primary adversaries continue to use political warfare to undermine or dismantle resistance to their aggressive, anti-democratic policies. This is not new; it has been a mainstay of their toolbox since the mid-1940s. Though we initially appreciated the threat and armed according for the war we were in, within a few years, this changed in the face of Russian and Chinese overt military threats. The US relegated defending against their political warfare in favor of a military-first policy. The result has been a Maginot Line of nuclear deterrence and traditional military force readily and increasingly easily bypassed with political warfare since we have blatantly disregarded the flanks. Following decades and decades of decisions made and not made by the Oval Office on down amounts to all but engraved invitations to any adversary to exploit these lateral approaches as we not only failed to defend against these efforts but, in this century especially, failed to impose any meaningful cost resulting from their political warfare.
It is useful to know that Russia and China, among others, would be dumb not to wage political warfare against our interests and those of our democratic allies. Political warfare is inexpensive, especially relative to traditional warfare. Munitions, which include but go well beyond mere “information,” are cheap. The damage to physical infrastructure from political warfare is virtually or completely nil compared to a traditional invasion. If we want to be glib, we can throw in that political warfare is environmentally friendly. Political warfare is tolerant of mistakes and missteps. It allows for multiple and simultaneous, even potentially contradictory, lines of effort along multiple fronts, audiences, and territories. Further, political warfare can result in a deeper and longer-lasting positive result without post-invasion reconstruction, occupation troops, or possibly a directly appointed viceroy, depending on the objective.
Subscribed
Even if you’re not interested in political warfare, political warfare may be interested in you. I wrote “maybe” because a neat trick of political warfare is the ability to bypass or neutralize resistance, like an island-hopping campaign.
What is political warfare?
There is no one clear definition of political warfare. That shouldn’t put you off since the definition of war can be fluid. Some bureaucracies and their cultures object to “warfare” being in the name, leading to the claim they don’t do political warfare because they don’t engage in warfare.1
It’s common to see a reference today to a 1948 memo by George Kennan where he sought to define political warfare:
Political warfare is the logical application of Clausewitz’s doctrine in time of peace. In broadest definition, political warfare is the employment of all the means at a nation's command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives. Such operations are both overt and covert. They range from such overt actions as political alliances, economic measures (as ERP--the Marshall Plan), and “white” propaganda to such covert operations as clandestine support of "friendly" foreign elements, "black" psychological warfare and even encouragement of underground resistance in hostile states…
Understanding the concept of political warfare, we should also recognize that there are two major types of political warfare--one overt and the other covert. Both, from their basic nature, should be directed and coordinated by the Department of State. Overt operations are, of course, the traditional policy activities of any foreign office enjoying positive leadership, whether or not they are recognized as political warfare.2
Two years earlier, in his “Long Telegram,” Kennan used “subterranean” to describe unofficial, deniable, and sometimes overt activities (with covert efforts explicitly and implicitly already included).
Efforts will be made in such countries to disrupt national self confidence, to hamstring measures of national defense, to increase social and industrial unrest, to stimulate all forms of disunity… Where individual governments stand in path of Soviet purposes pressure will be brought for their removal from office.
I could mention NSC 10/2 from 1948, which discusses political warfare, but that’s not helpful here. Reviewing Murray Dyer’s Weapon on the Wall (1959), where he suggests “political communication” as an option to avoid “warfare,” is more helpful, as is James Warburg’s ahead-of-its-time Unwritten Treaty (1946). But here I’ll share a definition from 1954, by Robert Strausz-Hupé (founder of the Foreign Policy Research Institute)3 and Stefan T. Possony, both of whom fall into the far-right anti-Communist bucket:
The purpose of political warfare may be to strengthen some competing groups or to weaken others; to organize forces whose activities can be directed toward desired ends; to support groups for as long as their objectives conform to one's own; and to help fully controlled and semi-controlled groups and personalities to reach positions of power and influence and eventually to take over the government. These methods can range all the way from simple manifestations of sympathy to the financing, organizing, and equipping of political movements, and from personal friendships between statesmen to the infiltration or capture of politically important agencies in the target country and the fomenting of mutinies, civil wars, and revolutions.
Not everyone was on board, though. In 1956, William H. Jackson, who led President Eisenhower’s 1953 Committee on International Information, argued that, after “diplomatic, military, and military means of promoting national objectives,” political warfare “too broad to describe this fourth area of effort.”
This means to me that practically everything, except the use of force, which a government does to attain its national objectives against a potential enemy can be called political warfare. The term is obviously too broad to describe the area of effort remaining after you have dealt with the diplomatic, economic, and military means of promoting national objectives.
A better description – and understanding – of political warfare comes from James Burnham’s 1961 article, “Sticks, Stones & Atoms” (italics in the original):
True political warfare, as understood and practiced by our enemy, is not mere rivalry or competition or conflict of some vague kind. Political warfare is a form of war. It is strategically in nature. Its objective, like that of every other form of war, is to impose one’s own will on the opponent, to destroy the opponent’s will to resist. In simplest terms, it aims to conquer the opponent.
Within the frame of that general objective, the specific objective of each polwar campaign is always defined in terms of power. The purpose in conducting polwar operations is always to increase one’s power in some definite way or to decrease the power of the opponent. In either case, positive or negative, the aim is to alter the power equilibrium in one’s favor.
The power objects may be grandiose—conquest of a nation, disintegration of an empire; or the minor takeover of a trade union, scaring a parliament into defeating a bill, or the sabotage of a factory. But whether big or small, the objective is always power.
Share
My definition of political warfare is derived primarily from Burnham:
Political warfare is the expression of power for hostile intent through discrete, subversive, or overt means, short of open combat, onto another. It is not mere rivalry or competition, it may have strategic or tactical objectives, and it may operate in one or more areas—political, societal, economic, psychological, or other—that are available for exploitation to affect change.
Though specific means of political warfare vary based on time, opportunity, capabilities, and specific objectives, its value and purpose is constant. The target’s media, culture, society, laws, politics, infrastructure, or something else may be targeted and exploited as required or as possible for a desired political effect. Political warfare is about working by, with, or through the local population. What may be considered innocuous engagement in one context may be viewed as political warfare in another. For example, a discussion in Paris about how Americans vote isn’t threatening, though the same discussion in Beijing or Moscow is viewed as subversive by the respective governments.4
The Congressional testimony of
Timothy Snyder yesterday caused me to share the above. The real difference between yesterday and today is not so much the technology. There were similar concerns about the speed of communications before, though today’s speed means failure to proactively and reactively engage the threat will incur greater pain and higher political and economic costs on the target. No, the real difference between yesterday and today is the willingness and eagerness of persons and organizations in the US to support adversarial objectives and further adversarial political warfare against the US from within the US. I recommend reading and viewing the hearing. Links are on Dr. Snyder’s:Thinking about...
Political Warfare and Congress
The essence of “political warfare,” in the sense defined by the Chinese communist party, is that Beijing uses media, psychology, and law to induce adversaries to do things counter to their own interests. Political warfare works through you or it does not work. So if you are not willing to think about yourself, you are not thinking about political war…
Read more
4 hours ago · 89 likes · 6 comments · Timothy Snyder
1
I won’t name the bureaucracy (State Department), but this was evident in 1947 regarding critical legislation adapted to respond to Russian political warfare. The bill would become the Smith-Mundt Act, and its purpose as a counter-disinformation, anti-misinformation, and anti-political warfare law has been forgotten, which is ironic and a result and reflection of the current confusion over political warfare and information warfare today. A staff report of a joint and bipartisan Senate and House delegation that traveled across Europe in September and October of 1947 stated the United States Information Service, the mainstay of the informational element authorized by the bill, “is truly the voice of America.” The report listed five objectives it listed of the international information program: (1) explain the United States’s motives; (2) bolster morale and extend hope; (3) give a true picture of American life, methods, and ideals; (4) combat misrepresentation and distortion; and, (5) be a ready instrument of psychological warfare when required. Psychological warfare, a synonym for political warfare at the time, disappeared from the final public version because, as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs testified, “in the State Department, we try to avoid psychological warfare.” Interested readers may want to look at Dean Acheson’s autobiography, Present at the Creation, specifically, the chapter titled “The Department Muffs its Intelligence Role,” where he wrote, “Information and public affairs had a better chance and were well served by several devoted assistant secretaries. Eventually they succumbed to the fate of so many operating agencies with which the State Department has had a go, including economic warfare, lend-lease, foreign aid, and technical assistance. In all these cases, either the Department was not imaginative enough to see its opportunity or administratively competent enough to seize it, or the effort became entangled in red tape and stifled by bureaucratic elephantiasis, or conflict with enemies in Congress absorbed all the Department’s energies.”
2
Kennan’s reference to Clausewitz is likely to this passage from a 1943 translation of the late Prussian’s On War:
War is only a part of political intercourse, therefore by no means an independent thing in itself. We know, of course, that war is only caused through the political intercourse of governments and nations; but in general it is supposed that such intercourse is broken off by war, and that a totally different state of things ensues, subject to no laws but its own. We maintain, on the contrary, that war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means. We say ‘with an admixture of other means,’ in order thereby to maintain at the same time that this political intercourse does not cease through the war itself, is not changed into something quite different, but that. in its essence, it continues to exist, whatever may be the means which it uses, and that the main lines along which the events of the war proceed and to which they are bound are only the general features of policy which run on all through the war until peace takes place. And how can we conceive it to be otherwise? Does the cessation of diplomatic notes stop the political relations between different nations and governments? Is not war merely another kind of writing and language for their thought? It has, to be sure, its own grammar, but not its own logic.
3
Fun fact: an appointment of Strausz-Hupé as ambassador was blocked by Senator Fulbright because the nominee was too hard on communism. See my post on Fulbright’s role in damaging and undermining our ability to discuss and defend against adversarial political warfare and information warfare here:
MATT ARMSTRONG
·
DECEMBER 13, 2023
In the spring of 2005, I sat in a university conference room attending a State Department public diplomacy official’s presentation about US public diplomacy. I didn’t know what this “public diplomacy” thing was. I had returned to the university the year before to complete an undergraduate degree in international relations. (I had dropped out in 1992, a …
Read full story
4
In Beijing as a Governor on the formerly-named Broadcasting Board of Governors, I met with the second-in-charge of China’s domestic propaganda agency as part of a discussion to get China to uphold its promise to allow a second bureau for Voice of America, which was limited to two journalists and one bureau (compare this to China’s vast footprint across the US, from numbers of employees of Chinese government media operations to their number of offices across the US, to their access to US radio and tv, etc.). As an example of VOA being a news and information outlet, with the latter including information about the US, I offered VOA could have a short segment on how Americans registered to vote. His retort was swift and aggressive: “Don’t tell us how to vote!” He understood.
2. Call for Papers Irregular Warfare
Call for Papers
Irregular Warfare
Deadline to Submit: 15 May 2024
Anticipated Publication: September 2024
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/Call-for-Papers-Irregular-Warfare/
Download the PDF
Army University Press and the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School seek articles on irregular warfare from academia and the field for a collaborative special edition of Military Review. We invite you to write on one of the research questions below, current and historical case studies, or other irregular warfare-relevant topics to expand understanding of irregular warfare as a phenomenon or tool of action.
“Irregular Warfare (IW) is a form of warfare where states and non-state actors campaign to assure or coerce state or other groups through indirect, non-attributable, or asymmetric activities, either as the primary approach or in concert with conventional warfare.”
—Joint Publication 1, Joint Warfighting, vol. 1 (2023)
Irregular Warfare (IW) is the “overt, clandestine, and covert employment of military and non-military capabilities across multiple domains by state and non-state actors through methods other than military domination of an adversary, either as the primary approach or in concert with conventional warfare.”
—Field Manual 3-0, Operations (2022)
Potential topics include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Examine the role of policy, doctrine, training, and education in understanding and operationalizing irregular warfare
- Explore case studies of recent irregular warfare challenges to gain insights into contemporary issues and strategies
- Consider future trends and the effects of the digital age on the irregular warfare landscape
- Space and cyber in irregular warfare
- Civil-military relations and irregular warfare
- Special operations, conventional, and interagency convergence in irregular warfare
- Military information support operations: opportunities and obstacles in irregular warfare employment
- Identifying gaps and what is needed for the future irregular warfare fight and competition
- Ethical and legal considerations in irregular warfare: rules, norms, and human rights
- Information advantage in irregular warfare
- Translating human advantage to the physical dimension
- Stability operations: the challenge of keeping the peace in an irregular warfare context
- Proxy warfare: how state and nonstate actors use proxies in irregular warfare
- The logistics of irregular warfare: resourcing and sustaining
- Austere medicine: keeping the force in the fight in irregular warfare settings
Please send submissions to usasoc.milreview.submissions.shdmbx@socom.mil.
Articles should be prepared in accordance with the Military Review submission guide at https://www.armyupress. army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/MR-Article-Submission-Guide/.
3. Xi Jinping tightens grip on China’s military with new information warfare unit
Not quite the "information warfare" I was expecting. Central control and ensuring loyalty and ideological correctness underpins everything.
Excerpts:
The military leadership has been experimenting with smaller reorganisations in recent years, suggesting that the 2015 reforms were not complete.
“The relative success of the functions they moved under the CMC has convinced them that they will have the control they want,” McReynolds said.
He added that Beijing was focused on cutting out layers of command and enabling top leaders to speak directly to tactical forces in wartime if needed.
Bi Yi, a veteran army general, was appointed commander of the new Information Support Force, and Li Wei named as its political commissar. The latter position wields power equal with the commander as the Communist party seeks to enforce absolute loyalty and ideological correctness in the force, which belongs to the party rather than the state.
Xi Jinping tightens grip on China’s military with new information warfare unit
Beijing launches restructuring of armed forces as it challenges US dominance in Pacific
Financial Times · by Kathrin Hille · April 19, 2024
China has established a new information warfare department under the direct command of its top military body as it begins its largest restructuring of the armed forces in more than eight years.
The shift of information warfare to the direct command of the Central Military Commission — the top Communist party and state organ that controls the People’s Liberation Army — would hand Chinese leader Xi Jinping even more direct control over the military, analysts said.
The Information Support Force will aim to “speed up military modernisation and effectively implement the mission of the people’s armed forces in the new era”, Xi said at a ceremony in Beijing on Friday.
It will be removed from the Strategic Support Force, which was set up eight years ago as a new PLA branch combining information, cyber and space warfare departments under Xi’s previous military restructuring, according to a statement from the PLA Daily military news service.
The space and cyber forces would also be brought under a new command structure, it said, de facto abolishing the Strategic Support Force. Under the SSF, the information forces had been in charge of collecting technical intelligence and providing intelligence support to regional military chiefs.
“When the SSF was created, they rearranged existing capabilities under a new command structure. We guessed at the time that might be transitional, and that has now come to pass,” said Joe McReynolds, China security fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.
Beijing’s efforts to further strengthen the PLA are closely watched as China challenges US dominance in the Indo-Pacific region and wields its growing military power to intimidate various neighbours in territorial disputes.
Xi’s last major PLA restructuring in 2015 moved key functions such as logistics, training and mobilisation directly under the command of the CMC, which he chairs.
Combining cyber, information and space forces under the SSF was viewed as an attempt to create similar direct control.
But experts on the Chinese military said that leaders had unwound that structure as a result of an incident last year in which a Chinese surveillance balloon was shot down by the US, as well as corruption investigations into generals and a failure to achieve synergies across the different divisions within the SSF.
The military leadership has been experimenting with smaller reorganisations in recent years, suggesting that the 2015 reforms were not complete.
“The relative success of the functions they moved under the CMC has convinced them that they will have the control they want,” McReynolds said.
He added that Beijing was focused on cutting out layers of command and enabling top leaders to speak directly to tactical forces in wartime if needed.
Bi Yi, a veteran army general, was appointed commander of the new Information Support Force, and Li Wei named as its political commissar. The latter position wields power equal with the commander as the Communist party seeks to enforce absolute loyalty and ideological correctness in the force, which belongs to the party rather than the state.
Financial Times · by Kathrin Hille · April 19, 2024
4. US troops set to withdraw from Niger, State Department official says
Is this new US decision a result of the recent exposure by the 4th estate?
US troops set to withdraw from Niger, State Department official says
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/19/politics/us-troops-to-withdraw-from-niger?utm
By Kylie Atwood, CNN
Published 9:45 PM EDT, Fri April 19, 2024
Carley Petesch/AP
A U.S. and Niger flag are raised side by side at the base camp for air forces and other personnel supporting the construction of Niger Air Base 201 in Agadez, Niger, April 16, 2018.
CNN —
US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with Niger’s Prime Minister Ali Lamine Zeine on Friday and they agreed – after Niger’s demands – that the US would militarily withdraw from the country, according to a State Department official.
In the coming days, there will be conversations over the timeline for the withdrawal with the Department of Defense, the official said.
The major drawdown will significantly impact the US troop presence on the continent of Africa, and the move comes amid serious US concerns about the country’s deepening relationships with Russia and Iran. The New York Times first reported on the expected withdrawal.Campbell’s meeting with Zeine was their second this week, while he was in Washington, DC, for the World Bank’s spring meetings.
Just last month, Niger said it was revoking its military cooperation deal with the US, and these conversations followed what have been contentious interactions between officials from the two countries in recent months. Last summer the US troops stationed in Niger became inactive after a military coup that pushed out the democratically elected president, Mohamed Bazoum, and installed the military junta.
Throughout the conversation with Campbell this week, Zeine stressed a desire for partnership with the US to continue and made an effort to differentiate this situation from that of the French, the State Department official said. Still, it appears that both countries will be militarily forced out of the country within a year of one another. The US will maintain a diplomatic presence in the country, the official said.
Earlier this week in Niger, a senior airman filed a formal whistleblower complaint, warning that the US ambassador to Niger and the defense attache had “intentionally suppressed intelligence” in an attempt to “maintain a façade of a great country-to-country relationship.”
And US forces on the continent faced another blow last week when Chadian officials threatened to cancel the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, which determines the rules and conditions under which US military personnel can operate in the country. While the letter did not directly order the US military to leave Chad, officials told CNN that it said all US forces would have to leave a French base in N’Djamena.
5. Congress Must Support Ukraine And Israel—Our Interests Depend On It
Congress Must Support Ukraine And Israel—Our Interests Depend On It
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2024/04/18/congress-must-support-ukraine-and-israel-our-interests-depend-on-it/?sh=3df95ef73f25
Dave Deptula
Contributor
I write on defense, strategy, the profession of arms, and aerospace.0
Apr 18, 2024,08:45pm EDT
An apartment building in Kharkiv after Russian shelling (Photo by SERGEY BOBOK/AFP via Getty Images)AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
As Congress and the American people consider the merits of future aid to Ukraine and Israel, it is crucial to recognize this support is a vital downpayment in United States’ security at a time when threats are surging. Whether considering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s aggression in the Pacific, Iranian-driven violence in the Middle East, North Korea’s continued nuclear weapons build out, or the threats posed by violent non-state actors, U.S. interests around the globe are under threat like never before. Ignoring these challenges is not a viable option. Nor is it realistic to think the U.S. can successfully address these threats unilaterally. Success demands partnering with allies and partners, which is exactly what the support for Ukraine and Israel represents.
Throughout the 20th century, the United States stood as a proud leader on the side of justice and freedom. American forces were the deciding factor in both World Wars and the United States was the lynchpin of the western alliance during the Cold War. The alternatives facing the world were stark had not the U.S. willingly accepted this leadership mantle. Whether discussing Nazi Germany’s oppression or the Soviet Union’s totalitarian objectives, freedom was literally on the line throughout the last century.
In the subsequent decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. willingly choose to downsize its military. Force structure and personnel in all the service branches were dramatically cut. Looking at the Air Force, it now has less than half the combat aircraft it possessed in 1991. In fact, the Air Force today is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history—and programmed to get even smaller due to Congressional budget caps. This reduction in capacity is matched with a relative decline in capability. Most U.S. Air Force fighters in service now predate the invention of the worldwide web. The B-52—the backbone of the free world’s bomber force just celebrated the 72nd anniversary of its first flight. While not as geriatric, similar challenges can be found in nearly every service.
Multiple conflicts in the 1990s, combined with the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq, ground down U.S. forces hard. What modernization did occur was not focused on China, Russia, a nuclear North Korea, or a soon to be nuclear Iran—the very kind of challenges that now define our security environment. Specific risk was purposefully taken in areas needed to deter these threats—the world’s most capable combat aircraft, the F-22 and the B-2, were cut to a fraction of their stated military requirement. We desperately need the next generation of capabilities embodied in these weapon systems today, and at sufficient capacities needed to meet the demands of our defense strategy.
While the U.S. was cutting its military strength for major conflict and focused on small-scale operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea doubled down on their security modernization. This included innovating 21st century capabilities previously the sole domain of the United States—things like precision weapons, stealth, advanced space architectures, and nuclear weapon investments. This has yielded a highly complex, lethal multipolar threat environment with adversary nations partnering to present the U.S. and its allies with highly integrated, coordinated challenges. Make no mistake Russia’s push in Ukraine, Iranian actions via proxies in the Middle East, continued Chinese aggression and North Korean ballistic missile tests are aligned to strain U.S. and allied capabilities, capacity and resolve.
Given the dramatic reduction in U.S. military capacity and modernization, it is no longer reasonable to assume the American forces can successfully handle these challenges alone, especially when they are executed in an integrated fashion. The only way the U.S. will succeed is by partnering with allies. However, for that to work, allied nations and their populaces need to have confidence that the U.S. is dependable and will come through when the chips are down. Congress’s incessant inaction in approving vital aid to Ukraine, Israel and the broader defense supplemental erode this confidence. Politics must not supersede policy wisdom and basic pragmatic common sense given what is at stake.
Ukrainians and Israeli forces are engaged in fights directly tied to core U.S. interests. We must do all we can to see that they prevail in these wars. Falling short of that mark will embolden our adversaries to directly challenge us, and dramatically increase the odds that America’s sons and daughters will have to spill their blood as a result. There comes a point where evil must be checked.
00:01
03:12
Read More
Ironically, most of the aid funding in question will be spent in the U.S. It will help the U.S. defense industry scale to meet the new challenges facing us. This reset is vital given that over three decades of defense under investment and shortsighted strategic security decisions have yielded a defense industrial base unable to meet the security demands facing us. We need to rebuild that capacity as a national priority and do it fast. Otherwise, we risk the very real possibility that we will lose our next major regional conflict.
The United States has faced these decision windows before and done the right thing—leaders of past eras stood on the side of right. Today’s leaders must do the same. In 1940, when Europe was in the opening phases of World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt asking for assistance that would eventually come in the form of Lend Lease. He explained: “Mr. President, the voice and the force of the United States may count for nothing if they are withheld too long.” We face a similar set of circumstances today. It is time to act. Congress must pass the legislation supporting Ukraine and Israel.
Follow me on Twitter.
Dave Deptula
Follow
I currently am the Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and also a Senior Military Scholar at the Air Force Academy. I was the principal attack planner for the 1991 Operation Desert Storm air campaign; commander of no-fly-zone operations over Iraq in the late 1990s; director of the air campaign over Afghanistan in 2001; twice a joint task force commander; was the air commander for the 2005 South Asia tsunami relief operations; a fighter pilot with more than 3,000 flying hours–400 in combat–multiple command assignments in the F-15; served multiple tours in the Pentagon; and participated in several defense reviews. My last assignment was as the USAF first deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), where I transformed America’s military ISR and drone enterprises. I served more than 34 years, and work to stimulate innovative thought on defense, strategy, and information age operations. Read Less
6. G-7 Warns China Against Aiding Russia in Its War Against Ukraine
G-7 Warns China Against Aiding Russia in Its War Against Ukraine
By Courtney McBride, Donato Paolo Mancini, and Arne Delfs
April 19, 2024 at 9:44 AM EDT
Top diplomats from the Group of Seven countries leveled one of their strongest warnings yet against China, cautioning Beijing to stop helping Russia wage its war against Ukraine.
“We’ve made very clear to China — and many other countries have as well — that they should not be supplying Russia with weapons for use in its aggression against Ukraine,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in Capri Friday after a meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers.
“It’s allowing Russia to continue the aggression against Ukraine and it’s also helping Russia overall rebuild its defense forces and defense capacity,” he said.
Even though China has sought to portray itself as mostly neutral in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it’s established a deep alliance with Moscow as part of what Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin termed a “no limits” friendship two years ago.
Ukraine’s allies, including the US, have accused China of supporting Russia with optics, nitrocellulose, microelectronics, and turbojet engines. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Beijing was also providing the Asian nation with satellite imagery for military purposes, as well as microelectronics and machine tools for tanks.na Is Helping Russia in War Against Ukraine
Play
Play
0:21
We express our strong concern about transfers to Russia from businesses in the People’s Republic of China of dual-use materials and weapons components that Russia is using to advance its military production,” according to the G-7 communique. “This is enabling Russia to reconstitute and revitalize its defense industrial base, posing a threat both to Ukraine and to international peace and security.”
Ukraine is struggling to fend off military pressure from Russia in the face of a lack of ammunition and military equipment. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has been calling for more air defense systems as Kremlin troops exploit the country’s weakness to step up missile attacks on power stations, electricity grids and residential areas.
“When China establishes an ever-closer relationship with Russia, which carries out an unlawful war of aggression, then we cannot accept this,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock told reporters on Friday in Capri. “We call on China to use its influence on Putin. In no case can we accept that any country in the world fires up Putin’s war machinery.”
Zelenskiy will speak with NATO defense ministers on Friday when he’s expected to ask for more air defense support. EU foreign and defense ministers will meet on Monday to discuss the topic.
“China can’t have it both ways,” Blinken said. “To have positive friendly relations with countries in Europe and at the same time be fueling the biggest threat to Europe since the end of the cold war.”
7. Opinion | The unspoken story of why Israel didn’t clobber Iran
The headline editor should have contine Ignatius' boxing metaphor and used pummel instead of clobber.
Excerpts:
How to explain Israel’s actions over the past week? What accounts for its restraint, in a situation where hawks in the Israeli government were screaming for all-out assault?
Here’s my take: Israel is behaving like the leader of a regional coalition against Iran. In its measured response, it appeared to be weighing the interests of its allies in this coalition — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan — which all provided quiet help in last weekend’s shoot-down. It’s playing the long game, in other words.
This would amount to a paradigm shift for Israel. Rather than seeing itself as the embattled Jewish state fighting alone for its survival against a phalanx of Arab and Muslim enemies, Israel knows that it has allies. Top of the list, as always, is the United States. But America is joined by Arab states that oppose Iran and its proxies as much as the Israelis do.
Opinion | The unspoken story of why Israel didn’t clobber Iran
By David Ignatius
Columnist
|
Follow author
Follow
April 19, 2024 at 7:10 p.m. EDT
The Washington Post · by David Ignatius · April 19, 2024
One rule for containing a crisis is to keep your mouth shut, and the United States, Israel and Iran were all doing a pretty good job at that Friday after Israeli strikes near the Iranian city of Isfahan. Maybe the silence was the real message — a desire on all sides to prevent escalation by word or deed.
Over the past week, we’ve seen what looks to me like a considered decision by Israel to subtly reshape its strategy for deterring Iran and Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Israeli deterrence is usually about massive use of offensive military force — a roundhouse punch that seeks to compel compliance through coercion.
But this time was different. When Iran launched a missile and drone barrage last weekend in retaliation for Israel’s April 1 strike on Iranian military leaders in Damascus, Syria, Israel used its Iron Dome defense system and help from allies to absorb the blow. The reported destruction of 99 percent of Iran’s incoming munitions was an astonishing display of missile defense. Some Israelis wanted to respond immediately with a big counter-barrage. But under pressure from President Biden, they waited.
When the Israeli response came early Friday, it was muted. Iranian and Israeli reports suggest that the Israeli air force attacked a site near some of Iran’s largest nuclear facilities. Those facilities weren’t damaged, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But Israel sent the message that it can penetrate Iranian air defenses and hit strategic targets when it chooses.
Israel wanted the last word in this exchange, and it seems to have succeeded. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday, after talks with officials in Tehran, that “Iran does not want an escalation.” Iranian public statements scoffed at the limited action, but Israel showed it can strike when it wants — in this case a jab, but next time, maybe not. In this sense, Israel maintained what strategists call “escalation dominance.” It landed the first blow and the last one.
How to explain Israel’s actions over the past week? What accounts for its restraint, in a situation where hawks in the Israeli government were screaming for all-out assault?
Here’s my take: Israel is behaving like the leader of a regional coalition against Iran. In its measured response, it appeared to be weighing the interests of its allies in this coalition — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan — which all provided quiet help in last weekend’s shoot-down. It’s playing the long game, in other words.
This would amount to a paradigm shift for Israel. Rather than seeing itself as the embattled Jewish state fighting alone for its survival against a phalanx of Arab and Muslim enemies, Israel knows that it has allies. Top of the list, as always, is the United States. But America is joined by Arab states that oppose Iran and its proxies as much as the Israelis do.
That’s the new shape of the Middle East. But for now, at least, this ripening friendship between Israel and its former adversaries in the region must remain unspoken.
Israel over the past week has gained another precious asset. After absorbing Iran’s missile assault so deftly, it’s seen at once as a victim of attack and a master of high-tech defense. That’s a welcome reversal, after six months of grueling combat against Hamas in Gaza that severely tarnished Israel’s international reputation. After Iran’s cascade of missiles and the limited response from Jerusalem, Israel now appears to have support of the Group of Seven advanced industrial nations.
Israeli hard-liners will say that a weak Biden administration has pressured Israel to pull its punches. In the brutal combat of the Middle East, it’s kill or be killed, these critics will argue. This hard-bitten Israeli conception of deterrence can seem compelling. But I’ve been watching Israel’s go-it-alone approach to security for nearly 45 years, and I would say that its results have been mixed, at best.
We’re looking at something new, after “the guns of April.” Maybe the worst is yet to come, if Iran decides to “sneak out” toward acquiring nuclear weapons, Hezbollah attacks from the north or Israel opts for devastating preventive war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. But good or bad, this is a new chapter in the story.
Bringing a rapid end to the Gaza war is essential now. We’re at an inflection point, where it’s in the overwhelming interest of Israel, the Palestinians and the entire Middle East to conclude this conflict. As veteran diplomat Dennis Ross recently observed, Israel is accomplishing the effective demilitarization of Hamas, with 19 of its 24 battalions gone. The de facto military alliance of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states with Israel is an open secret. We’re moving, at last, toward “the day after.”
Biden needs to help Israel end the war in Gaza and, with Arab help, find a pathway to an eventual Palestinian state. The White House isn’t commenting on all this, of course. But as Mark Rothko said in explaining why he stopped titling his paintings: “Silence is so accurate.”
The Washington Post · by David Ignatius · April 19, 2024
8. G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships
A country by country and issue by issue rund down in 6 sections (plus the intro):
II. FOSTERING PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MEDITERRANEAN AND AFRICA
III. ADDRESSING IRREGULAR MIGRATION, FOSTERING HOPE AND OPPORTUNITY
IV. PROMOTING A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC, MANAGING ENGAGEMENT IN ASIA
V. ADDRESSING GLOBAL CHALLENGES
V1. TACKLING REGIONAL ISSUES
VII. COOPERATION WITH LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
The north Korea section (my bias is showing). Heavy on nuclear weapons, missiles, threats, and sanctions. A paragraph on human rights but not surprisingly there is no mention of a free and unified Korea like at Camp David.
9. North Korea
We reiterate our strong condemnation of North Korea’s escalatory development of its unlawful weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programmes. We further reiterate our call for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and demand that North Korea abandon all its nuclear weapons, existing nuclear programs, and any other WMD and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner in accordance with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We urge North Korea to return to, and fully comply with, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and IAEA safeguards and to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We reiterate that North Korea cannot have the status of a nuclear-weapon state in accordance with the NPT. We urge North Korea not to conduct any further nuclear tests. We urge all UN member states to implement all relevant UNSCRs fully and effectively and demand Security Council members to follow through on their commitments. We urge North Korea to cease activities that generate revenue for its unlawful ballistic missile and WMD programmes, including malicious cyber activities.
In this context, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, including North Korea’s export and Russia’s procurement of North Korean ballistic missiles in violation of UNSC resolutions, as well as Russia’s use of these missiles against Ukraine. We are also deeply concerned about the potential for any transfer of nuclear or ballistic missiles-related technology to North Korea, in violation of the relevant UNSC resolutions. Russia’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution to renew the mandate of the UNSCR 1718 Committee Panel of Experts makes it easier for North Korea to evade the UN sanctions that Russia had previously voted for. We urge Russia and North Korea to immediately cease all such activities and abide by relevant UNSCRs. We reiterate our commitment to counter sanctions evasion and strengthen enforcement. We will increase efforts to maintain the Panel of Experts.
We strongly condemn North Korea’s systematic human rights violations and abuses and its choice to prioritize its unlawful weapons development programs over the welfare of the people in North Korea. We call upon North Korea to resolve the abductions issue immediately and to meaningfully engage with the UN human rights system. We take note of the progressive re-opening of North Korea’s borders and call upon North Korea to take this opportunity to re-engage with the international community including through the return of all diplomatic and humanitarian personnel to North Korea.
We are disappointed by North Korea’s continued rejection of dialogue and call on North Korea to accept repeated offers of dialogue, in order to enhance regional peace and security.
Read the entire statement here:https://www.state.gov/g7-italy-2024-foreign-ministers-statement-on-addressing-global-challenges-fostering-partnerships/
G7 Italy 2024 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Addressing Global Challenges, Fostering Partnerships
MEDIA NOTE
OFFICE OF THE SPOKESPERSON
APRIL 19, 2024
The text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union.
I. INTRODUCTION
As the international community faces multiple crises we, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, renew our commitment to upholding the rule of law, humanitarian principles and international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, and to protecting human rights and dignity for all individuals.
We reiterate the need to take collective action to preserve peace and stability and to address global challenges such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, global health, education, gender inequality, poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition, violent extremism and terrorism, information integrity and a digital transition that respects, protects, and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We affirm our commitment to free societies and democratic principles, where all persons can freely exercise their rights and freedoms. Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.
We reaffirm our commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) and to re-energize efforts towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as multidimensional crises, and particularly the pandemic and ongoing major conflicts, have set back progress towards their achievement.
We will continue to work in close cooperation with our partners and with relevant multilateral fora such as the G20. Global challenges require solidarity and a cohesive international response, looking for shared solutions for peace, stability, and development, leaving no one behind.
Continue to read here: https://www.state.gov/g7-italy-2024-foreign-ministers-statement-on-addressing-global-challenges-fostering-partnerships/
9. A team of bitter rivals is making Israel’s most crucial war decisions
Excerpts:
The tiny group, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wields supreme authority over the most consequential war matters: military operations in Gaza, hostage talks with Hamas and whether to open a second front against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Now, the quintet that meets without cellphones in “the Pit,” an ultra-secure section of the military’s headquarters in Tel Aviv, has apparently decided that a limited response is the best next step in the conflict with Iran, a burgeoning nuclear power committed to Israel’s destruction. The two countries have fought a shadow war for years.
“The five people in that room were faced with a decision that could be one of the three or four most crucial decisions since Israel’s founding in 1948,” said Nadav Shtrauchler, an Israeli political analyst.
And they did it with no love lost for each other. It is, by all accounts, a group riven by political animosities, rancor that was beginning to fracture the body before Iran’s attack last weekend served to paper the divisions over, at least for now.
When the latest crisis eases, tensions are likely to flare again, numerous Israeli observers said.
“They all hate each other, that’s for sure,” said an Israeli official familiar with the cabinet’s internal dynamics.
A team of bitter rivals is making Israel’s most crucial war decisions
The Washington Post · by Steve Hendrix · April 20, 2024
JERUSALEM — As Israel mulled a response to Iran’s massive drone and missile attack, the decision to strike with a carefully calibrated limited strike early Friday was made by just five men.
They are the sole members of Israel fractious “war cabinet,” a pop-up body of rival politicians charged with steering the country through its worst security crisis in half a century.
The tiny group, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wields supreme authority over the most consequential war matters: military operations in Gaza, hostage talks with Hamas and whether to open a second front against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Now, the quintet that meets without cellphones in “the Pit,” an ultra-secure section of the military’s headquarters in Tel Aviv, has apparently decided that a limited response is the best next step in the conflict with Iran, a burgeoning nuclear power committed to Israel’s destruction. The two countries have fought a shadow war for years.
“The five people in that room were faced with a decision that could be one of the three or four most crucial decisions since Israel’s founding in 1948,” said Nadav Shtrauchler, an Israeli political analyst.
And they did it with no love lost for each other. It is, by all accounts, a group riven by political animosities, rancor that was beginning to fracture the body before Iran’s attack last weekend served to paper the divisions over, at least for now.
When the latest crisis eases, tensions are likely to flare again, numerous Israeli observers said.
“They all hate each other, that’s for sure,” said an Israeli official familiar with the cabinet’s internal dynamics.
The core of the war cabinet, hastily formed in the chaos following Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, includes Netanyahu and two other leaders he sees as future political threats.
The first is opposition leader Benny Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces who ran against Netanyahu in five recent elections and has now soared past the prime minister in polling.
The second is Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a rival from within Netanyahu’s own Likud party, who last year publicly warned that the government’s attempts to remake the judiciary were splitting the military and harming its readiness.
Netanyahu fired Gallant in a dramatic, televised address, but was forced to back down in the face of massive street protests.
“In politics, everything is personal,” said Shtrauchler, who ran Netanyahu’s successful electoral campaign in 2019.
“These are not his best buddies; these are his rivals,” he said. “So far, that hasn’t kept them from coming to good decisions.”
The group of three is rounded out by two nonvoting “observers,” including Ron Dermer, Israel’s former ambassador in Washington and one of Netanyahu’s closest advisers, and Gadi Eisenkot, another former IDF chief of staff who hails from Gantz’s center-right National Unity Party.
The unlikely cohort formed five days after Hamas fighters launched a surprise attack inside Israel, killing around 1,200 people and dragging 253 more back to Gaza as hostages. In less polarized times, the government’s existing security cabinet — an institution recognized by Israeli law — would have managed the war in Gaza that Israel launched within hours.
But Hamas struck when the country’s trust in government and sense of unity had already been shattered by the stormy judicial reform controversy. Anger flared at Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving leader, for presiding over the stunning security failures of Oct. 7.
Senior leaders scrambled to regain public confidence, forging a power-sharing agreement with Eisenkot and Gantz. What emerged was a war cabinet with powers to direct military operations. The new authority sidelined the security cabinet, which had a reputation as an unwieldy, leak-prone committee of more than a dozen members, including the most extreme ministers of Netanyahu’s far-right coalition.
Military officials privately say they don’t like taking classified information before the security cabinet because it often appears in the media within hours. For the war cabinet, the generals and military analysts who file in to brief its members are required to surrender their phones.
“We don’t see many leaks from the war cabinet,” the Israeli official said. “When we do, it is usually intentional.”
But from the beginning, Israeli media tracked the debates taking place in the Pit, or in the secure conference room at the prime minister’s Jerusalem office, where the war cabinet also meets.
The reports suggest Gallant pushed unsuccessfully in the first weeks of the war to launch an offensive against Hezbollah, which was sending fighters to the Israeli border. Gantz and Eisenkot also frequently argued to increase the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, as the war there destroyed infrastructure and took a devastating toll on Palestinian residents.
Netanyahu often delays committing to any particular course of action, the reports said.
But the divisions became more apparent over time. Gantz, Eizenkot and Gallant failed to appear with Netanyahu at some post-cabinet meeting media briefings.
In February, Israeli media obtained a letter from Eisenkot to his fellow members, criticizing the body’s inability to make strategic decisions. Eisenkot, whose son was killed fighting in Gaza last year, cited stalled efforts to negotiate the release of hostages and to plan for a civilian alternative to Hamas rule after the war, among other shortcomings.
In early March, Gantz flew to Washington for unsanctioned talks with administration officials, infuriating Netanyahu’s allies who accused him of trying to “drive a wedge” between Israelis. Earlier this month, Gantz, who has surpassed Netanyahu in the polls, called for Israel to hold elections in September.
The frictions were probably inevitable as the intensity of the fighting in Gaza began to ease, at least temporarily, and more political issues rose to the fore, according to Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute. Those include controversies over drafting more ultra-Orthodox Israelis and the role of the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in Gaza’s future, he said.
The war cabinet “worked well in the beginning, but then general political issues began to degrade it,” Plesner said.
Then came more than 300 drones and missiles from the east.
Iran said it attacked Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its embassy compound in the Syrian capital, Damascus, earlier this month. The Iranian operation, while unprecedented, caused little damage in Israel, but it rattled an already uneasy nation and persuaded Israeli leaders of the need for a response.
“The discussions now around the attack from Iran are masking, for a period, that general trend of the war cabinet losing its original role,” Plesner said.
As the operation unfolded Sunday, media reports portrayed Gantz as the more hawkish member, pressing for an immediate counterattack. But following a late-night call during which President Biden urged Netanyahu to show restraint, the war cabinet agreed to delay any decision.
As Biden and other allies lobbied Israel not to take actions that could lead to a regional war, Netanyahu and the war cabinet went unusually silent. They had requested a range of target options from the military and debated actions that would deter Iran without sparking further escalations, the Israeli official said.
As the world waited, some critics have blasted the ad hoc nature of the war cabinet — which, unlike the security cabinet, is not endorsed by Israeli law — as the wrong forum for such a momentous decision.
“The very fact that the fictitious ‘War Cabinet,’ a body without any legal status, is the one that discusses the critical strategic question of going to war against Iran — is a disturbing scandal,” Eran Etizion, former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council, said on X Monday.
The Washington Post · by Steve Hendrix · April 20, 2024
10. Ukraine weapons package ‘ready to go’ once aid bill clears Congress
Excerpts:
After the attacks, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, pointed to what they called the double standard in the United States and other Western allies assisting Israel in intercepting Iranian missiles and drones last week while failing to adequately help Ukraine, which is under fire each day.
“American support has been in question for too long,” Zelensky said Friday, addressing the Ukraine-NATO Council. “When it comes to the defense of freedom, everything that is in question gives a clear answer to Putin. It prompts him to act whenever the West slows down.”
Ukraine weapons package ‘ready to go’ once aid bill clears Congress
It will take the Pentagon less than a week to deliver some weapons to Ukrainian units who have been forced to ration artillery and air defense rounds, officials say
By Alex Horton and Siobhán O'Grady
April 19, 2024 at 3:16 p.m. EDT
The Washington Post · by Alex Horton · April 19, 2024
The Pentagon has a massive infusion of military aid for Ukraine “ready to go,” U.S. officials said, once a long-delayed funding measure, which is expected to pass the House this weekend, clears the Senate next week and President Biden signs it into law.
The Defense Department, which has warned that Ukraine would steadily cede more ground to Russian forces and face staggering casualties without urgent action on Capitol Hill, began assembling the assistance package well before the coming votes in a bid to speed the process, these people said.
One official, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the Biden administration’s planning, said that once the $95 billion foreign aid bill is finalized, it would take less than a week for some of the weapons to reach the battlefield, depending on where they are stored. The legislation includes about $60 billion for Ukraine, with most of the remainder slated for Israel and U.S. partners in Asia.
It was not immediately clear how expansive the package will be, though it is almost certain to contain desperately needed ammunition for systems Ukrainian personnel rely on most, including 155mm shells used in NATO howitzers and munitions for medium-range rocket artillery. Since the war began, individual U.S. transfers have ranged in value from hundreds of millions of dollars to more than $2 billion.
As the aid bill languished in Congress for months, officials in Washington and in Kyiv said Ukraine’s front-line units were rationing a rapidly evaporating stockpile of armaments and that soon Moscow would have a 10-to-1 advantage in artillery rounds.
It is also probable the Pentagon will provide Ukraine with a fresh tranche of air defense equipment and ammunition, a vital need to combat Russia’s relentless campaign against the country’s civilian infrastructure. NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday he was convening with allies to discuss ways to bolster such capabilities, with a focus on the high-end Patriot system.
A Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder, declined to comment. News of the planned transfer was reported earlier by Politico.
The United States has provided nearly $45 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since early 2022, when Russian President Vladimir Putin launched Moscow’s full-scale invasion. Its last aid package, totaling $300 million, was prepared in March after the Pentagon identified “unanticipated cost savings” in recent arms contracts — an outlier after congressionally approved funding dried up last year and an intense political fight followed President Biden’s request for more.
U.S. support for the Ukraine war has bitterly divided the Republican Party, with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) delaying consideration of the funding bill as he navigated strident opposition from far-right members of his caucus. With the help of Democrats, on Friday he muscled through a procedural measure that sets the stage for this weekend’s vote, though doing so could cost him his leadership post.
In Ukraine, officials have growing increasingly frustrated by Washington’s paralysis as the battlefield situation has worsened due to ammunition and personnel shortages.
In February, Ukrainian forces retreated from the eastern city of Avdiivka, ceding significant territory to the Russians for the first time in almost a year — a decision Ukrainian officials blamed on limited resources. Across the front line, Ukrainian troops are facing such severe ammunition shortages that they are rationing shells, leaving artillery units unable to protect the infantry by striking deeper into Russian-controlled territory to halt Russian advances.
Russia has seized on these weaknesses, first in Avdiivka and more recently by pushing toward the town of Chasiv Yar, outside of Bakhmut. Aware Ukraine is also running low on air defenses, Russia has launched repeated missile and drone strikes on major cities and Ukrainian energy infrastructure, destroying energy facilities across the country, straining the electrical grid and stirring panic in residential areas. Again and again, Ukrainian officials have begged publicly for air defense they said could have prevented these strikes.
Then this week, Russia struck the northern city of Chernihiv and the eastern city of Dnipro and surrounding villages, killing dozens of people and badly damaging infrastructure. Both attacks could have been averted, Ukrainian officials said, if Ukraine had the air defense supplies it needs.
After the attacks, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, pointed to what they called the double standard in the United States and other Western allies assisting Israel in intercepting Iranian missiles and drones last week while failing to adequately help Ukraine, which is under fire each day.
“American support has been in question for too long,” Zelensky said Friday, addressing the Ukraine-NATO Council. “When it comes to the defense of freedom, everything that is in question gives a clear answer to Putin. It prompts him to act whenever the West slows down.”
O’Grady reported from Kyiv. Dan Lamothe contributed to this report.
The Washington Post · by Alex Horton · April 19, 2024
11. Sizing up the China-Russia 'New Axis'
Charts, graphs, and maps at the link: https://asiatimes.com/2024/04/sizing-up-the-china-russia-new-axis/
Excerpts:
Stiffest economic competition ever
I can’t say whether or not the New Axis is the most formidable military competitor that the US and its allies have ever faced. The original Axis was certainly fearsome and the USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons ready to roast the world at the touch of a button.
But I think that the comparisons above show that the New Axis certainly represents an economic competitor like none the US and its allies have ever faced. And the reason is simply China. Russia is mainly a gas station with nukes but China has three things going for it:
- China has far, far more workers than the original Axis or the Soviet bloc.
- China has advanced manufacturing technology that probably rivals the original Axis in relative terms, and far exceeds the Soviet bloc.
- China has the world’s largest manufacturing cluster, making it the “make everything country”, which neither the Axis nor the USSR managed to be.
This is simply a unique situation in modern history. The Industrial Revolution began in Europe and spread to the US and the East Asian rim. The aftermath of WW2 saw central Europe and the East Asian rim incorporated into a US-led alliance that dominated global manufacturing in a way that the communist powers could never threaten.
Now, with the rise of China, world manufacturing is divided roughly in two. Much of the War Economy in the US and its allies will therefore be about rediscovering the manufacturing capabilities they neglected during China’s meteoric rise.
Sizing up the China-Russia 'New Axis' - Asia Times
Would a China-Russia axis defeat US and its allies in a major conventional war? Here’s what the math says
asiatimes.com · by Noah Smith · April 20, 2024
In a recent post, I tried to warn people about the substantial and growing chance of World War 3. My post was focused on the risk that a war will occur, but it didn’t really focus on the risk that the US and its allies will be defeated in that war.
Yes, nuclear weapons are a factor, but there’s no certainty they’ll be unleashed in WW3, even by the losing side. So yes, there is a chance the US and its allies could be defeated by China and its allies in a major conventional world war.
How big is this chance of defeat? Obviously, factors like training and competence come into play, and these are in favor of the US. Technological sophistication is also important and here as well the developed democracies probably still have at least a small edge over China.
But in World War 2, both skill/experience and technological sophistication slightly favored the Axis over the Allies at the start of the war. Nazi Germany started with the best ground equipment, while Japan had the best fighter planes and torpedoes, and arguably the best aircraft carriers as well.
But over time, massive US and Soviet production of ships, planes, tanks, and materiel ground down the Axis. And as the war progressed, the Allies learned how to fight and improved their technology rapidly, until by the end it was better than what the Axis had.
In a long conventional war, production really matters. And China has, since the turn of the century become by far the world’s biggest producer. Even before the current massive splurge of production, China was the world’s largest manufacturer by far, making as much physical stuff as the US and all of Europe combined.
The country’s current effort to increase that share even further threatens to make China the “make-everything country” in reality, turning the rest of the world into a de-industrialized hinterland.
If that happens, the democracies’ edges in technology and training will prove short-lived, and they will likely lose a long war unless they can very rapidly remember how to make physical goods en masse.
I tried to illustrate the sheer size of the challenge that the US and its allies are facing in another post. It’s something we need to be taking very seriously. Anyone who scoffs at industrial policy or the idea of bringing back manufacturing in the US and Europe needs to be able to answer the questions raised by this post, which is republished here:
I wish I didn’t have to live through an era of renewed great power conflict. I wish the end of the Cold War had meant that such destructive episodes were forever relegated to the history books.
But unfortunately, those wishes did not come true. The Ukraine war means that the US is now definitely in a long-term Cold War-type struggle with Russia. And the substantial chance of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan sometime in the next few years means that there’s a high likelihood that the US will also soon be enmeshed in a contest with China as well.
Hopefully neither of these conflicts will result in direct war between great powers (especially because all the great powers now have plenty of nuclear weapons). I am not arguing that we are headed for WW3 here.
But a sequel to the Cold War — a protracted geopolitical struggle in which both sides prepare for the possibility that they might have to fight each other — seems extremely likely at this point. So likely, in fact, that the US can’t afford not to plan for it.
That’s what the concept of the “War Economy” is about. As Anduril founder Palmer Luckey says, “current year is too late to care about current thing.” We began to prepare for a possible conflict with the original Axis several years before WW2 broke out, and in the Cold War we prepared for a WW3 that fortunately never came.
But the US must prepare again now. And that means far more than just spending money on defense; it means reorganizing the economy to promote certain industries, build or rebuild certain capacities, and reorganize supply chains.
The scale and nature of the task are determined by the capabilities of the opposition. In WW2, the Axis powers had advanced manufacturing prowess but small populations and a lack of access to fuel. In the Cold War, the Soviet bloc had a lot of fuel and a population similar to the US, but had a small and dysfunctional economy and struggled with advanced manufacturing.
In contrast, a potential “New Axis” of Russia and China would control enormous population, vast fuel resources, advanced manufacturing capabilities and a combined economy of enormous size. Except for the fuel part, this is all just China.
So this post is about how the US and its likely allies stack up against the New Axis in economic terms.
Is there actually a New Axis?
Before we compare the two potential blocs, we should ask whether the New Axis is a real thing. “New Axis” is just a term I made up to refer to the combination of China and Russia (and whatever other allies and fellow travelers they can muster).
The idea that these two powers are de facto allies against the US is based on the joint statement they released before the Ukraine war. When I use the term “New Axis”, though, people occasionally scoff, arguing that China and Russia have too few common interests and too much mutual suspicion to form any kind of close alliance.
And maybe this is true. So far, China has been reluctant to offer substantial support to Russia for its invasion of Ukraine: Chinese companies, afraid of sanctions, aren’t even investing much in Russia.
But it’s worth remembering that the original Axis wasn’t that close of an alliance either. Germany and Japan signed some agreements and both fought against the US, but they didn’t work together much at all during the war.
They also didn’t team up against the USSR — Japan signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets (which the Soviets themselves broke only in the very last days of the war), and notably failed to come to Germany’s aid in Operation Barbarossa.
In order to be comparable to the original Axis, a New Axis of Russia and China wouldn’t even have to work together militarily or give each other arms. Russia would have to sell China fuel, but other than that, they really could just ignore each other and focus on fighting the US and its allies in separate theaters.
Even in this “minimal New Axis” case, the US and its allies have to prepare to oppose both Russia and China at the same time. As long as Russia and China don’t fight each other and Russia provides China with fuel, they might as well be allies in the new Cold War.
To size up the two blocs, we have to assign countries to them, and this is highly speculative. Even in WW2, the final composition of the Allies wasn’t determined until Hitler invaded the USSR; indeed, during the early days of the conflict, it looked as if the USSR might even join the Nazis, or at least sit things out. So there’s a lot of guesswork here.
On the New Axis side, I’m just going to include China and Russia. North Korea is also included but it’s very small and really all it can do is fight South Korea, so I’ll ignore it. Then there are a couple of wild cards like Pakistan and Iran, but these have generally low capabilities and little reason to get involved with a global great-power conflict, so I’ll leave them out too.
The harder question is which countries would be on the US’ side in this new Cold War. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has united most of Europe against Russia and deepened transatlantic cooperation, which puts a lot of people and GDP and manufacturing capacity in the US’ corner. And Japan will likely be the US’ main partner in a conflict with China over Taiwan.
So I’ll include the EU, the UK, and Japan in the “New Allies.” I’ll leave out South Korea, assuming it will be tied down by North Korea. I’ll also leave out some smaller countries like Canada and Australia that would almost certainly be part of the New Allies; this is at least partially balanced by the fact that some EU countries like Hungary wouldn’t really cooperate.
The really big wild card here is India, which has a huge population and a reasonably hefty economy. The USSR was India’s protector during the Cold War and much of India’s military equipment still comes from Russia (though this is starting to shift). So India can’t be expected to enter into any conflict against Russia.
But China is a very different matter. China is India’s main military threat, and the two countries have come to blows recently over a disputed border. They are also rivals for influence in the Indo-Pacific region. This is why India has joined the Quad, forging a loose quasi-alliance with the US, Japan and Australia whose purpose is obviously to hedge against China.
Thus, because India’s status is still pretty uncertain, I’ll do two comparisons: one with just the New Allies of the US, EU, UK and Japan, and one with the New Allies + India.
Because of the uncertain nature of the coalitions (and because of my omission of smaller coalition partners on both sides), these comparisons should be taken as rough and indicative rather than definitive. All numbers are the most recent available.
Tale of the tape: population, GDP, and manufacturing output
“Quantity has a quality all its own.” – Joseph Stalin
First, let’s just talk about population. Obviously, that’s only one input to national power, but it’s worth looking at anyway:
Screenshot
What this chart really just shows is that China and India are really, really, really big compared to every other country, and even compared to the EU. That’s a fact worth remembering.
Now let’s look at GDP. GDP is important for military strength because unless you’re operating a command economy, you have to pay for your army somehow, and GDP determines the available tax revenue.
There’s a debate as to whether it’s more appropriate to use nominal GDP or purchasing power parity-adjusted GDP in these comparisons. So I’ll just sidestep that debate by showing both, because they really don’t tell that different of a story:
Source: IMF
Source: IMF
Numbers here are in millions of dollars.
The basic story here is that the New Allies have a substantially higher GDP than the New Axis, with or without India on board. The difference is a bit narrowed when we use PPP, to a ratio of 1.7 instead of 2.3 (without India). The other thing we see from this comparison is that in economic terms as well as population, the New Axis is mostly just China.
Of course, we could expect these figures to change in the result of a war, as a result of sanctions, disruptions to supply chains, financial market changes, war production, and a variety of other things. So this is just an indicative measure of where we stand.
But anyway, paying for your army is one thing, but if your alliance can’t actually make the things you need to fight a war, then having a bunch of dollars is not so useful. Modern warfare requires making a lot of stuff — missiles, drones, ships, tanks, trucks, ammo, and so on.
So manufacturing output is probably important, above and beyond simple GDP; when a war rolls around, dollars that come from tourism, or from selling fancy wine, are going to be of less use than dollars of factory output. Anyway, here’s the comparison, again in millions of dollars:
Source: World Bank
Here we see it’s a much closer-run thing. India doesn’t manufacture a ton, so with or without India, the New Allies just barely out-manufacture the New Axis.
The reason, as before, is China. As Damien Ma says, China has become the “make everything country.” Before the turn of the century, a very large percent of the manufacturing in the world, in terms of value, was done in the old industrialized economies of the US, Europe, and Japan.
But in the last 20 years, China has emerged as a second center of manufacturing that rivals all of the old industrialized nations combined. On some deep level, I suspect this shift is why we’re seeing the revival of great-power conflict.
What this means is that while Russia itself can’t manufacture the materiel for a protracted local conflict with Europe, China can manufacture enough to sustain both itself and Russia in a conflict between the two blocs I’m envisioning here.
Specific economic capabilities
“The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make.” – William T. Sherman
The manufacturing comparison in the previous section was pretty broad; the total value-added figure leaves out lots of important stuff. It doesn’t tell us how technologically advanced a country’s weapons systems are. It doesn’t tell us what percent of manufacturing capacity could be repurposed to military uses.
And most importantly, it doesn’t show how complete a country’s supply chains are. If you go into a war with manufacturing companies that depend on the enemy countries for critical components, it doesn’t matter how much value-added you produce in peacetime — your factories will grind to a halt.
Value added is calculated on the margin, in peacetime, while wartime manufacturing capability is inframarginal — it’s the amount you can make after wrenching changes close you off to your peacetime supply chains.
During the early Covid pandemic, the US painfully rediscovered this principle when it found itself unable to make enough masks, Covid tests, or ventilators. But later in the pandemic, the US had the advanced biotech supply chains to pump out huge amounts of mRNA vaccines, while China was the one to struggle.
Thus, it’s very hard to tell which supply chain pieces will end up being the choke points in a conflict. This is why the Biden administration is working feverishly on this problem, and I’m sure the Chinese authorities are doing the same. But there are a few things we can probably predict will be important.
First, fuel. (At this point I’ll stop doing the stacked bar charts and just show a map.) We can see that both of the posited blocs would have ample access to oil:
Screenshot
Coal is a similar story — China and Russia have plenty, but so do the US and Australia. Gas is also roughly similar.
So, on paper, both blocs have enough fossil fuels. For the New Axis, the question would mainly be whether Russia can get enough oil and gas to China — it would involve either moving a lot of tankers through potentially contested waters or building a ton of very expensive difficult pipelines across the vast expanses of Eurasia. Of course, the US would face a similar problem getting oil, coal and gas to its allies in Europe and Asia.
To be sure, fossil fuels aren’t the only type of energy out there; there’s also renewables. Carting around the energy from renewables requires a lot of batteries (and maybe some electrolyzers), which requires a lot of minerals.
David Roberts has a good breakdown of mineral requirements for alternative energy, with some good charts showing where the minerals are located. Graphite and rare earths are concentrated in China, while cobalt and platinum are concentrated in Africa:
Source: Volts, IEA
Sign up for one of our free newsletters
Of course, this is just current production. The US and its allies will probably be able to develop domestic supplies of rare earths and graphite if they have to, just as Japan started mining rare earths when China cut it off. But finding and exploiting these resources takes time, so the New Allies should probably be looking at this right now.
Then there’s the question of where the minerals are processed. Here we see that the answer is mostly “China”:
Source: Volts, IEA
This seems like a real vulnerability for the New Allies. My suspicion is that there are a lot of other basic, “primary industry” type of tasks that developed countries have lazily let migrate en masse to China because they aren’t very high up the value chain. But in a conflict situation, “high up the value chain” suddenly means a lot less.
Semiconductors — i.e., computer chips — are an additional consideration. “Chips are the new oil”, as they say, which means that semiconductors are used in pretty much every piece of machinery. That includes all the machines of war and war production. Currently, the New Allies produce most of the semiconductors in the world, though China is racing to catch up:
Screenshot
But despite China’s mightiest efforts, this looks like an area where the New Allies will maintain a decisive advantage over the next decade.
In general, what looking at supply chain chokepoints shows us is that neither the New Axis nor the New Allies represents a fully self-contained, integrated economic machine that can make everything it needs for a major conflict.
The past 20 years have seen China and the old industrialized nations develop a symbiotic relationship — they are deeply intertwined. (One would hope this would be enough to prevent a conflict but that’s almost certainly wishful thinking given past experience.)
What that means is that in the event of a conflict, each bloc would be scrambling to shore up its weak points — China scrambling to build more chip fabs and secure more oil from Russia, the US and Europe and Japan scrambling to rebuild the low-value primary industries that they outsourced to China.
Stiffest economic competition ever
I can’t say whether or not the New Axis is the most formidable military competitor that the US and its allies have ever faced. The original Axis was certainly fearsome and the USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons ready to roast the world at the touch of a button.
But I think that the comparisons above show that the New Axis certainly represents an economic competitor like none the US and its allies have ever faced. And the reason is simply China. Russia is mainly a gas station with nukes but China has three things going for it:
- China has far, far more workers than the original Axis or the Soviet bloc.
- China has advanced manufacturing technology that probably rivals the original Axis in relative terms, and far exceeds the Soviet bloc.
- China has the world’s largest manufacturing cluster, making it the “make everything country”, which neither the Axis nor the USSR managed to be.
This is simply a unique situation in modern history. The Industrial Revolution began in Europe and spread to the US and the East Asian rim. The aftermath of WW2 saw central Europe and the East Asian rim incorporated into a US-led alliance that dominated global manufacturing in a way that the communist powers could never threaten.
Now, with the rise of China, world manufacturing is divided roughly in two. Much of the War Economy in the US and its allies will therefore be about rediscovering the manufacturing capabilities they neglected during China’s meteoric rise.
This article was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion Substack and is republished with kind permission. Read the original and become a Noahopinion subscriber here.
Thank you for registering!
An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.
asiatimes.com · by Noah Smith · April 20, 2024
12. Opinion | Biden’s ‘bear hug’ with Israel pays off with a minimal strike on Iran
Opinion | Biden’s ‘bear hug’ with Israel pays off with a minimal strike on Iran
By Max Boot
Columnist
|
Author followed
Following
April 19, 2024 at 4:31 p.m. EDT
The Washington Post · by Max Boot · April 19, 2024
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has become notorious for ignoring President Biden’s advice on dealing with the Palestinians. Israel was so slow to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, the United States felt compelled to deliver its own assistance by air and sea. And Netanyahu has made it clear that, despite White House importuning, he will not allow the Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza after Hamas is gone. As for the West Bank, Netanyahu’s government gave the Biden administration the back of its hand in March by announcing the largest annexation of Palestinian land in decades while Secretary of State Antony Blinken was visiting Israel.
This highhanded behavior has bewildered and enraged observers who wonder why Biden keeps providing arms and ammunition to Israel and vetoing anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council. Part of the explanation is that Biden is an emotionally committed Zionist who believes Israel has a right to defend itself, even if it abuses that privilege in Gaza. Another reason is that Biden is an experienced foreign policy hand who understands that U.S. aid to Israel gives him leverage to slow the rush to a regional war that would surely drag in the United States and damage its economy in an election year.
We saw the payoff from Biden’s “bear hug” of Israel when Israel launched a pinprick retaliation early Friday for Iran’s massive attack last Saturday night on Israel. The risk of a regional conflagration had risen dramatically when Iran, responding to an earlier Israeli attack that flattened the Iranian consulate in Damascus and killed three Iranian generals, launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel. This was the first time in the 45-year shadow war between the two countries that Iran had directly attacked Israel; it had always preferred to act through proxy groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
If the Iranian attack had caused massive damage, Israel would have been forced to respond in kind, and conflict would have engulfed the region — with U.S. forces trapped in the midst. Rather than allow that, Biden committed the U.S. military to help Israel defend itself in coordination with Britain, France and Jordan. Even Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states apparently assisted with intelligence. U.S. F-15s and F-16s shot down at least 70 Iranian drones, a U.S. Patriot battery in northern Iraq shot down an Iranian ballistic missile and two U.S. warships in the eastern Mediterranean shot down four to six ballistic missiles. In the end, according to Israel, 99 percent of the Iranian projectiles were intercepted, and the damage inflicted was minimal.
In the days since, Biden and his aides have been lobbying Israel to “take the win” and refrain from retaliation that could lead to the brink of a wider war. This pressure made an impression on the Israeli public: A Hebrew University poll published Tuesday found that 74 percent of Israelis opposed a counterstrike on Iran “if it undermines Israel’s security alliance with its allies.”
Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet felt they could not simply do nothing, but they disregarded the advice of hard-liners who wanted to launch a massive retaliation. According to the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu told ministers from his Likud party that the Israeli response would be “sensible and not something irresponsible.”
Netanyahu was as good as his word early Friday. Israel conducted only a minimal attack on a military air base near the city of Isfahan. Iran claimed this was mounted by drones, but it was probably missiles fired from F-15s flying over Syrian airspace. In any case, the damage was minimal by design, and Israel was careful not to claim credit so that Iran had room to stand down.
Israel signaled that it can hit targets inside Iran — its air force is superior to Iran’s, and Iran’s air defenses are inferior to Israel’s. That Isfahan is home to a major Iranian nuclear facility is no coincidence: The Israelis were showing that they could bomb Iran’s nuclear program if they choose to. Now, the Iranians are signaling that they want to avoid an escalation.
So chalk up a small victory for Biden, and give credit also to Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister has earned international opprobrium over the past six months for the civilian casualties inflicted by his forces in Gaza, but Hamas forced that war on Israel with its Oct. 7 attack. During his nearly two decades in power, Netanyahu has actually been cautious about the use of force. He has often threatened to bomb the Iranian nuclear program but has never actually done so. And in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, he disregarded his own defense minister’s advice to launch a second front against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Although a regional war has been averted for now, the danger still looms that Iran and Israel have crossed a red line by directly attacking each other’s soil. It will take active, continued U.S. involvement to keep hostilities from spinning out of control. It is particularly important that Israel and Saudi Arabia return to their negotiations on normalizing relations that were interrupted by the Gaza war.
So much for Biden’s hopes — which echo those of his two predecessors — to pivot from the Middle East toward great-power competition with Russia and China. The region remains too important and too volatile to ignore. But the events of the past week show that with patient, steady, determined leadership, Washington can still help guide the region away from war.
The Washington Post · by Max Boot · April 19, 2024
13. Political Warfare and Congress - Testimony to Oversight Committee, “Defending America from the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Warfare, Part I” Professor Timothy Snyder
Professor Synder's statement tis below and can be downloaded with all references at this link: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Snyder-Testimony.pdf
Researchers may find all the references useful.
Excerpt:
Democracy is in decline, dragged down by the autocratic lie. The autocrats offer no new visions; instead they lie about democracies and insert lies into democracies. The test of disinformation is its power to alter the course of crucial events, such as wars and elections.
Conclusion:
In the contest between authoritarian and democratic regimes, it will ultimately be not just self-defense but creative initiative that defines and saves the democracies. The era of hostile disinformation is also the era of the decline of reporting, and the two phenomena are linked. An American who has access to reporting will be less vulnerable to disinformation, and better able to make navigate the demands of democratic citizenship. A victory over disinformation will be won in a climate in which Americans have access to reliable information and reasons to trust it.
Political Warfare and Congress
https://snyder.substack.com/p/political-warfare-and-congress?utm
My Testimony from 17 April
TIMOTHY SNYDER
APR 19, 2024
The essence of “political warfare,” in the sense defined by the Chinese communist party, is that Beijing uses media, psychology, and law to induce adversaries to do things counter to their own interests.
Political warfare works through you or it does not work. So if you are not willing to think about yourself, you are not thinking about political warfare.
I had the honor of testifying to Congress on the question of Chinese political warfare this past Wednesday, April 17th. This testimony was before the Oversight Committee, which has devoted months of time, money, and attention to an impeachment inquiry which is based on a mendacious claim by a man in contact with Russian intelligence services.
That congressional impeachment inquiry, based on a Russian fabrication, then became the subject of Chinese propaganda tropes, designed to spread the lie that President Biden took a bribe. This false notion, generated by Moscow, can only be spread by Beijing because there are Americans in the middle, American elected officials, who do their part.
A hearing on political warfare in Congress, and especially before this particular committee, requires self-reflection.
The hearing had some moments of interest, many of which are circulating as clips. Feel free to post your favorites in the comments.
The below text is my formal written testimony, which you can find in with all the notes and references on the congressional website. Video of my opening remarks is here. The entire session can be viewed here.
•••
Testimony to Oversight Committee, “Defending America from the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Warfare, Part I”
Professor Timothy Snyder, 17 April 2024
Democracy is in decline, dragged down by the autocratic lie. The autocrats offer no new visions; instead they lie about democracies and insert lies into democracies. The test of disinformation is its power to alter the course of crucial events, such as wars and elections.
Russia undertook a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on the basis of a big lie about Nazis.
Even as we meet today, Russian (and Chinese) propaganda shapes House debates about Ukraine, the most important foreign policy decision of our time. In domestic politics, the most important matter in coming months the coming presidential election.
To begin with the war. Beijing cares about Ukraine because it is the decisive conflict of our time. It can spread lies about Ukraine thanks to prior Russian labor. Beijing wrongly blames the war on Washington. Chinese information actions seek to attract American actors around to Russian propaganda tropes meant to justify Russian aggression and bring about American inaction.
Though Americans sometimes forget this, Ukrainian resistance is seen around the world as an obvious American cause and an easy American victory. So long as Ukraine fights, it is fulfilling the entire NATO mission by itself, defending a European order based in integration rather than empire, and affirming international order in general. It is also holding back nuclear proliferation.
Given these obvious strategic gains, American failure in Ukraine will lead other powers to conclude that a feckless and divided United States will also fail to meet future challenges. The fundamental goal of Russian (and thus Chinese) propaganda is to prevent American action, thereby making America seem impotent and democracy pointless -- also in the eyes of Americans themselves.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is intimately connected to a possible Chinese war of aggression against Taiwan. As Taiwanese leaders continually and urgently remind us, Ukrainian resistance deters Chinese aggression. Ukraine deters China in a way that the United States cannot, without taking any action that Beijing could interpret as provocative. A Russian victory in Ukraine, therefore, would clear the way for Chinese aggression in the Pacific. It would strengthen China's ally, force Europe into a subordinate relationship to
Beijing, and discredit democracy. It would also bring into Russian hands Ukrainian military technologies that would be significant in a Chinese war of aggression.
Russia's one path to victory in Ukraine leads through minds and mouths in Washington, DC. Russian and Chinese propaganda therefore celebrates the inability of Congress to pass aid for Ukraine, and praises those who hinder the passage of such a bill. But the specific propaganda memes that China spreads (and some American leaders repeat) about the war are of Russian origin. Russia is the leader in this field; China is imitating Russian techniques and Russian tropes.
A central example is the Russo-Chinese invocation of "Nazism." Russian began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine with the grotesque claim that its aim was the "denazification" of Ukraine. (Ukraine is a democracy with freedom of expression, assembly and religion, which elected a Jewish president with more than 70% of the vote. Russia is a one-party state with a leader cult that is fighting a criminal war and suppressing all domestic opposition.) This "Nazi" meme was immediately boosted by the Chinese government. Over the weekend before this hearing, a Member of Congress tweeted this Russian disinformation trope.
The Russian war of destruction in Ukraine is the pre-eminent test of democracy; U.S. elections come next. Russia is also the leader here. China has has no Paul Manafort. It lacks American human assets with experience in directing foreign influence campaigns and close to American presidential campaigns. Nothing China has done (as yet) rivals the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016.
On social media, CCP propaganda demeans the Biden administration. But China's social media campaign on behalf of Trump in 2024 looks like a copy (a poor one) of Russia's on behalf of Trump in 2016. CCP propaganda invokes the false charges raised in impeachment hearings, but the lies that China magnifies arose from a person in contact with Russian intelligence. What China can do is try an influence campaign based on a Russian initiative -- and American impeachment hearings. Insofar as this works at all, it is a cycle: Russia-America-China -- with the Chinese hope that the propaganda it generates from Russian initiatives and American actions will cycle back to distress Americans and hurt the Biden administration.
The CCP's internet propaganda is posted on X (Twitter). Likewise, Russia's denazification meme did not need a Russian or a Chinese channel to reach Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Nor did she need a Russian or Chinese platform to spread the disinformation trope further. She and her American followers used X (Twitter).
Marjory Taylor Greene is not the only member of Congress to have presented the Russian "denazification" trope in public debate. In the case of Matt Gaetz, we know that the transmission belt was Chinese, because he cited a Chinese state propaganda source in congressional debate.
It is not clear in what sense X is an American platform; in any event, its owner, Elon Musk, has removed prior safeguards identifying state propaganda outlets, driving much higher viewing of Russian and Chinese propaganda. Under Musk, X (Twitter) has been particularly lax in policing known Chinese propaganda accounts, ignoring their flagging by government and other platforms. Musk has also personally spread specific Russian propaganda tropes.
Russian lies are meant not only to disinform, to make action more difficult, but also to demotivate, to make action seem senseless. Russian memes work not by presenting Russia as a positive alternative, but by demoralizing others. No one wants to be close to "Nazis," and the simple introduction of the lie is confusing and saddening.
The same holds with the Russian meme to the effect that Ukraine is corrupt. A completely bogus Russian source introduced the entirely fake idea that the Ukrainian president had bought yachts. Although this was entirely untrue, Representative Greene then spread the fiction. Senator J.D. Vance also picked up the "yacht" example and used it as his justification for opposing aid to Ukraine.
The larger sense of that lie is that everyone everywhere is corrupt, even the people who seem most admirable; and so we might as well give up on our heroes, on any struggle for democracy, or any struggle at all. Ukraine's president, Volodymr Zelens'kyi, chose to risk his life by remaining in Kyiv and defending his country against a fearsome attack from Russia which almost all outsiders believed would succeed within days. His daring gamble saved not only his own democracy, but opened a window of faith that democracies can defend themselves. It confirmed the basis lesson of liberty that individual choices have consequences. The lie directed at Zelens'kyi was meant not only to discredit him personally and undermine support for Ukraine, but also to persuade Americans that no one is righteous and nothing is worth defending.
Insofar as legislators such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and J.D. Vance are vectors of propaganda, they are themselves playing a part of the Russian (or Russo-Chinese) operation. As such they are not merely spreading fictions; they are also modelling a "Russian" style of government, a politics of impotence, in which big lies are normal, corruption is thought to be routine, and nothing gets done. Russian lies about Ukraine are meant to prevent action to help Ukraine; but in a larger sense they are also meant to spread the view that those in power are incapable of any positive action at all.
When legislators embrace Russian lies, they demobilize the rest of us, conveying the underlying notion that all that matters is a clever fiction and a platform from which to spread it. A first step legislators can take is to cease to spread known propaganda tropes themselves. Russian (or Russo-Chinese) memes work in America when Americans choose to repeat them.
Republican leaders quite properly raise concerns about Russian memes in the Republican mouths. The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have warned in recent weeks that Russian disinformation has shaped the views of Republican voters and the rhetoric of Republican elected officials. Representative Michael R. Turner said that "We see directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages — some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor."
For this and other reasons, the problem cannot be dismissed as "foreign." Elite American actors such as Congressional representatives and billionaires know what they are doing when they spread Russian memes. Most Americans, however, confront them unknowingly.
From the perspective of Russia (and China), all social media platforms present an attack surface. Non-Chinese platforms are the main vectors of Russian and disinformation. During the 2020 presidential election, for example, the largest Facebook group for American Christians was run by people who were neither. While ByteDance/TikTok is important, it is less so than Twitter and Facebook. Social media as such favors hostile interventions over locally reported news. During the 2020 presidential election, for example, the main Facebook site for American Christians was run by people who are neither.
ByteDance/TikTok is an attractive target for legislation, but a ban on TikTok unaccompanied by other policy will have limited effects. It will not prevent China from carrying out influence operations in the United States, nor would it stop China from gathering information on American citizens. To hinder Russian (and Chinese, and other) operations, all platforms would have to be regulated.
In the contest between authoritarian and democratic regimes, it will ultimately be not just self-defense but creative initiative that defines and saves the democracies. The era of hostile disinformation is also the era of the decline of reporting, and the two phenomena are linked. An American who has access to reporting will be less vulnerable to disinformation, and better able to make navigate the demands of democratic citizenship. A victory over disinformation will be won in a climate in which Americans have access to reliable information and reasons to trust it.
14. Iran’s Nuclear Calculus Has Now Become More Dangerous
Excerpts:
The Gaza war has clarified the struggle between Israel and Iran. The Palestinians, surely much to Hamas’s displeasure, are again bit players in the Middle East’s new great game. In such a contest of wills, nothing checks one side better than the fear that the other might actually use a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Republic obviously doesn’t fear Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The same can’t be said for the reverse. With the ultimate weapon behind it, Iran would be not just a nation of consequence but a regime too dangerous to fail for those Americans still dreaming of regime change. Nuclear weapons don’t change everything, but they change a lot.
In the past seven months, America and Israel have been shocked by two events that were once unthinkable: the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel’s mini-Holocaust, and Iran’s missile attack, the first direct assault on Israeli territory in 45 years of unrelenting enmity. The next surprise may well be an unexplained seismic tremor in one of Iran’s deserts. The elderly Khamenei could then look upon Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s massive mausoleum and say with all humility, “I have surpassed thee.”
Iran’s Nuclear Calculus Has Now Become More Dangerous
Supreme Leader Khamenei must wonder if the Islamic Republic’s situation would be better if it had already tested a nuclear weapon. The West shouldn’t underestimate the ailing ayatollah’s need for a glorious legacy.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/irans-nuclear-calculus-has-now-become-more-dangerous-431fb1f4?mod=hp_lead_pos4
By Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh
Updated April 20, 2024 12:25 am ET
The rising tensions between Iran and Israel have provoked understandable foreboding. On April 1, an Israeli airstrike killed a senior Iranian commander in Damascus. Last weekend, Iran responded by launching more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel, which in turn prompted Israel to strike targets in the Iranian city of Isfahan on Thursday night. As the two historic antagonists climb the tiger’s back, the Biden administration is hardly alone in fearing a regional conflagration.
The Islamic Republic seeks revenge for its dead, while Israel needs to restore deterrence, badly damaged by Hamas’s Oct. 7 assault. If Israel fails to reestablish sufficient deterrence, it must prepare for a future filled with air-raid warnings and Israelis continuously in bomb shelters.
Lurking behind these anxieties is the Islamic Republic’s nuclear calculations. When the mullahs launched their atomic-weapon and ballistic-missile programs four decades ago, they were primarily thinking about countering Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, secondarily about checking the U.S. In those early days, as far as we can gather from Iranian sources about the genesis of the theocracy’s nuclear ambitions, a hatred of Israel and the regime’s fierce antisemitism weren’t significant drivers. That has surely changed.
Iran’s theocratic regime has to stand as the most successful imperial power in the Middle East since the British Empire. The comparison would offend the mullahs, but both managed to patrol large swaths of territory by relying on proxies—imperialism on the cheap. Soon after coming to power in 1979, Iran began putting together its collection of terrorists and militants. In Lebanon, it created Hezbollah, established a tight relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization (especially its lead military organization, Fatah) and later funded the more explicitly Islamic Palestinian rejectionist groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Israeli soldiers display an Iranian ballistic missile that fell in Israel during last weekend’s attack. PHOTO: GIL COHEN-MAGEN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
The clerical elite learned early that they could inflict pain on their adversaries with a measure of impunity if they hid behind their proxies. Their record of achievement is extraordinary. Hezbollah’s bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 provoked America’s withdrawal from Lebanon, clearly showing that even a Western superpower could be deterred through terrorism. Shiite Islamists started the cult of suicide bombing, which has since become the calling card of Sunni holy warriors.
Then came the 9/11 wars, the Arab Spring of 2011-12, the Syrian civil war and, most recently, the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, after the ignominious withdrawal of U.S. forces.
Civil wars and ethnic and sectarian conflicts have marked the new order, providing Iran with a bonanza of opportunities. The famed Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander Qassem Soleimani masterminded a multinational auxiliary force that could be deployed to various fronts. He created the so-called “axis of resistance,” Iran’s primary means for waging war against the Jewish state and America’s presence in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic Republic’s Shiite proxies lacerated U.S. forces in Mesopotamia, helping to humble a superpower. Iran helped to fuel the “forever wars” that have upended and demoralized American foreign policy.
Once civil war broke out in Syria, Tehran marshaled approximately 80,000 militiamen from across the region to rescue the Assad dynasty. In 2015, Russian special forces and air power also arrived. Together they slaughtered their way to victory. Ever since, Israel has been waging an unending air campaign in Syria to stop Tehran from turning the country into another missile platform.
In Yemen, the Houthis—wayward Shiites who were historically unloved by Iran’s branch of Shiism—proved eager surrogates of Tehran. They defeated the combined forces of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and their Yemeni allies, humbling the impetuous Saudi crown prince, Muhammed bin Salman.
Fighters for Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia, at a member’s funeral in Lebanon, October 2023. PHOTO: AMR ALFIKY/REUTERS
Through all of this mischief, Iran’s territory remained immune from retaliation as its embattled adversaries kept insisting that they could not expand the conflict.
Iran’s clerical regime celebrated Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel as a triumph of their “axis of resistance” strategy. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini intoned, “The cores of resistance are determining the fate of our region, and an example of them is the Al Aqsa Flood Operation.” Whether or not Khamenei gave the green light for the attack, his regime’s extensive military aid to Hamas was explicitly aimed to allow it to wage a more effective war against their mutual enemy.
Khamenei surely anticipated severe Israeli retaliation, while also assuming that the old rules would prevail: Iran would stoke its “rings of fire,” inflaming Israel’s frontiers through its proxies, and the ever-anxious West, led by the escalation-dreading Biden administration, would step in and impose a settlement on Israel. A badly battered Hamas would eventually emerge from its tunnels and declare victory.
To a large extent, the script has played out as Iran anticipated. Forced into unforgiving urban warfare, Israel has scorched Gaza. Facing increasing pressure from the White House, the IDF hasn’t moved on the last Hamas redoubt in Rafah. Unwilling or unable to sustain a significant occupation elsewhere in Gaza, Israeli forces are already encountering insurgent attacks in cleared areas.
Outside of Gaza, the Islamic Republic did what it needed to do. Hezbollah shot some of its rockets at Israel’s north, and the Houthis disrupted maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf. Tehran has been sending weapons to the West Bank. When Iran’s Shiite protégés in Iraq killed three American servicemen in Jordan, the Biden administration spared Iran and bombed its agents. At the U.N., Tehran got the desired denunciations of Israel. South Africa, stuck in decline with nasty internal politics, has become a poster child for Third World grievances, with a special animus against the Jewish state. It charged Israel with genocide at the International Court of Justice.
Although Israel may be getting bogged down in Gaza and is in an increasingly severe wrestling match with the Biden administration on how to fight Hamas, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has obviously decided to make Iran pay a higher price for its machinations. It did so loudly when it killed General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and six of his deputies in Damascus on April 1.
In life and death, Zahedi did not enjoy the public acclaim of Soleimani. The regime’s propaganda machine never touted his efforts to defeat Shiite-loathing Sunni extremists, which helped to make Soleimani a semi-sacred figure even among Iranians who despise the clerical regime. Zahedi was, however, a critical commander in Iran’s terror network, close to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. He was also a significant player in Iran’s long-standing support of Hamas. Khamenei was well aware of Zahedi’s many accomplishments, which also included a significant stint in crushing Iran’s internal opposition, and would want to avenge him.
Rubble at the site of the airstrike that killed an Iranian commander in Damascus, April 1. PHOTO: LOUAI BESHARA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Still, the scale of Iran’s retaliation surprised many. The Iran-Israel duel had been a confrontation with understood limits: Iran relied on terrorism and Israel on cyberattacks and targeted assassinations. The Syrian civil war stretched those limits but didn’t erase them. The Islamic Republic built armed encampments on Israel’s borders; Israeli planes continuously pummeled them. Yet both sides exempted each other’s territory from direct assault. All that changed when Tehran shot hundreds of projectiles at Israel on April 14, followed by Israel’s retaliatory attack on targets in Iran on April 18.
It is well-known that the ailing, 85-year-old Khamenei is trying to stage-manage his succession. This is not just succession at the very top; the country’s entire elite is changing. After years of purges, many conservative stalwarts of the revolution, such as former president Hassan Rouhani and former speaker of the parliament Ali Larijani, have been excised from the body politic. They are being replaced by more ideologically strident and parochial men drawn from the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and conservative religious circles. All of these people are more bellicose toward both Israel and the U.S.
Israel has thus far limited its counterattack to targets in the city of Isfahan, where Iran has nuclear facilities and an air base. It is unclear if this is the first salvo of a larger campaign or the sum total of its retaliation. Washington and the Europeans will certainly try to persuade Jerusalem to refrain from doing more. Netanyahu, whose bark has always been worse than his bite, has been allergic to war across his long career. Israelis in general seem divided between those who see their nation’s defense as coterminous with Washington’s wants and those more willing to risk American displeasure.
In anticipation of an Israeli military response, Brigadier General Ahmad Haghtalab, the commander for security of Iran’s nuclear facilities, suggested on Thursday how the Islamic Republic will use the nuclear shadow moving forward. “If the counterfeit Zionist regime would want to use the threat of attacking our country’s nuclear sites as a tool to put Iran under pressure,” he said, “revision of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear doctrine and polices as well as a departure from the previously announced reservations is conceivable and probable.”
Khamenei must wonder now if his situation would be better if Iran had already tested a nuclear weapon. Would Israel have attacked one of his cities if it had to think about the prospect of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? As successful as the axis of resistance has been for Iran, it has not checked offensive Israeli actions. A combination of Islamist proxies and an Iranian bomb, however, might well do the trick.
Even after everything that has taken place lately in the region, the U.S. intelligence community is at ease with its conclusion that “Iran uses its nuclear program to build negotiating leverage and respond to perceived international pressure.” Khamenei has not detonated a bomb because the program is a tool of diplomatic gamesmanship.
In reality, there are no technical barriers left that Iran’s engineers cannot overcome. Ali Akbar Salehi, the former head of the country’s Atomic Energy Organization and the regime’s most well-credentialed nuclear engineer, recently remarked: “We have [crossed] all the thresholds of nuclear science and technology.” Whatever the reasons behind Khamenei’s apparent reluctance to give the final green light, what’s happened since Oct. 7 must certainly give him pause about this hesitation.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visits an exhibition on Iran’s nuclear industry, June 2023. PHOTO: IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER’S OFFICE/ZUMA PRESS
The Gaza war has clarified the struggle between Israel and Iran. The Palestinians, surely much to Hamas’s displeasure, are again bit players in the Middle East’s new great game. In such a contest of wills, nothing checks one side better than the fear that the other might actually use a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Republic obviously doesn’t fear Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The same can’t be said for the reverse. With the ultimate weapon behind it, Iran would be not just a nation of consequence but a regime too dangerous to fail for those Americans still dreaming of regime change. Nuclear weapons don’t change everything, but they change a lot.
In the past seven months, America and Israel have been shocked by two events that were once unthinkable: the attacks of Oct. 7, Israel’s mini-Holocaust, and Iran’s missile attack, the first direct assault on Israeli territory in 45 years of unrelenting enmity. The next surprise may well be an unexplained seismic tremor in one of Iran’s deserts. The elderly Khamenei could then look upon Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s massive mausoleum and say with all humility, “I have surpassed thee.”
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Iranian-targets officer at the Central Intelligence Agency, is a resident scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the April 20, 2024, print edition as 'Iran’s Nuclear Calculus Has Now Become More Dangerous How Far Is Iran Ready To Go to Ensure Its Security?'.
15. Losing Ukraine Isn’t Necessary
Excerpts:
As for the public, the war has been going on for two years. We have many statements and actions by Mr. Putin, the Ukrainians, the U.S. and its allies, China and others to observe and analyze. Yet in the very same Washington Post, a sometime military historian, Max Boot, offers nothing crunchy or substantive, ignores every significant consideration that recommends itself to anyone who’s paying attention. Instead he asserts a series of non sequiturs culminating in a trope from 2017, that Mr. Trump is a Russian cat’s-paw, ready to surrender Ukrainian land to Russia as if Mr. Biden isn’t.
He does so to avoid seeing what’s before his eyes and taking a position on it and yet such commentators will be first and loudest to be heard in two possible futures, when we’re debating who lost Ukraine or who blundered into World War III.
In fashioning my own view, I try to take account of the demonstrated risk tolerance of the Biden administration, which the American people elected to call the shots here. A realistic and desirable outcome still seems to me a negotiated cease-fire, conceding none of Ukraine’s post-1991 territory, in which a thriving, battle-tested Ukraine becomes a formidable asset to the West’s long-term security against a decaying yet dangerous Russia.
Maybe this begins to seem wishful thinking, but it’s an outcome not remotely beyond Western resources, which dwarf those of Russia.
Losing Ukraine Isn’t Necessary
Mike Johnson has become clear on the stakes but Joe Biden’s waffle on war aims can’t continue much longer.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/losing-ukraine-isnt-necessary-war-russia-mike-johnson-biden-965d396e?mod=opinion_lead_pos8
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Follow
April 19, 2024 3:50 pm ET
Ukrainian soldiers fire toward Russian positions, March 22. PHOTO: EFREM LUKATSKY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Don’t overlook how much today’s Ukraine drama is merely ancillary to the inherent problem of U.S. politics. Not that our politics are polarized but they are polarized at 50-50, rather than 55-45, which is a lot easier for democratic institutions to manage.
Result: Mike Johnson, with his one-seat majority, needs Democratic votes not only to pass Ukraine aid but to remain the Republican House speaker. This service, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries quipped weeks ago, his Democrats could provide, but that doesn’t mean they will.
In fact, they will. Ukraine aid is likely to pass Saturday because Democrats want it to pass, but Democrats have also willed its delay and you might ask why.
Fit also into your picture something else. Mr. Johnson gave remarks on Wednesday about the urgency of helping Ukraine that sounded more presidential, and more persuasive, than anything Joe Biden has said in two years.
I concur with the one clear sentence fragment Donald Trump has spoken on ending the Ukraine war: It would take threatening Vladimir Putin with bigger Western arms support than has yet been put forward. In theory the aid bill could already have passed if Mr. Trump endorsed it. Why hasn’t he? To curry favor with isolationists? Because he’s secretly in league with Mr. Putin? No, because if it was enacted as a Republican bill, Republicans would become co-owners of a Biden policy they don’t control, which they understand perfectly well points to a messy outcome, neither victory nor defeat in Ukraine.
This kind of sharing would certainly suit Democrats. It explains why they sat on their hands for months while Mr. Johnson flailed. And, yes, it’s an awful moment in history for such games to predominate.
A recent Washington Post news investigation provoked comparisons between a supposedly secret Trump Ukraine plan and Nixon’s secret Vietnam plan. The comparisons are silly in every respect save one. Nixon’s plan wasn’t actually secret to anybody who read the press at the time. It was also identical to LBJ’s plan: Hand off ground combat to the Vietnamese, use U.S. bombing to press the North to negotiate.
Ditto today. There aren’t infinite ways ahead now either, beyond leveraging U.S. aid to bring the parties to the table.
The unspoken Biden codicil, moreover, has also been plain, glaring, a subject of columns here for two years: Help Ukraine defend itself but not too well, amounting to a U.S. assurance to Mr. Putin that he will be able to retain parts of Ukraine.
Recall the Biden administration’s exact words: “The only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation.” Any sentient person—Mr. Biden, Mr. Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, a taxi driver—knows negotiations end with Mr. Putin in continued occupation of Ukrainian lands and Ukraine and its allies having to be ever vigilant against further Kremlin revanchism.
If Mr. Putin is to be relieved of territory, it will be done through fighting, not talks. But this isn’t the U.S. approach and we should say so. Mr. Biden has found it convenient to waffle until now on American war aims but his uncertain trumpet begins to threaten even the ugly negotiated peace his policy always aimed at. It’s time to declare his goals and will the means to achieve them.
As for the public, the war has been going on for two years. We have many statements and actions by Mr. Putin, the Ukrainians, the U.S. and its allies, China and others to observe and analyze. Yet in the very same Washington Post, a sometime military historian, Max Boot, offers nothing crunchy or substantive, ignores every significant consideration that recommends itself to anyone who’s paying attention. Instead he asserts a series of non sequiturs culminating in a trope from 2017, that Mr. Trump is a Russian cat’s-paw, ready to surrender Ukrainian land to Russia as if Mr. Biden isn’t.
He does so to avoid seeing what’s before his eyes and taking a position on it and yet such commentators will be first and loudest to be heard in two possible futures, when we’re debating who lost Ukraine or who blundered into World War III.
In fashioning my own view, I try to take account of the demonstrated risk tolerance of the Biden administration, which the American people elected to call the shots here. A realistic and desirable outcome still seems to me a negotiated cease-fire, conceding none of Ukraine’s post-1991 territory, in which a thriving, battle-tested Ukraine becomes a formidable asset to the West’s long-term security against a decaying yet dangerous Russia.
Maybe this begins to seem wishful thinking, but it’s an outcome not remotely beyond Western resources, which dwarf those of Russia.
WSJ Opinion: An America at Risk
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
WSJ Opinion: An America at Risk
Play video: WSJ Opinion: An America at Risk
Wonder Land: Joe Biden and Donald Trump know the details of the nation’s security threat. Does either have a plan to meet it? Images: AP/Reuters Composite: Mark Kelly
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the April 20, 2024, print edition as 'Losing Ukraine Isn’t Necessary'.
16. Iran’s Threat Emerges Into Daylight
"Deterrence by deference." Can that be defined as a form of appeasement?
Iran’s Threat Emerges Into Daylight
Deterrence ‘by deference’ has failed, says Mark Dubowitz, and Tehran is now closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons.
By Elliot Kaufman
April 19, 2024 5:12 pm ET
Mark Dubowitz ILLUSTRATION: KEN FALLIN
Iran’s proxy strategy never fooled anyone. It’s no secret that the militias ripping up the Middle East, country after country, are loyal to Tehran—but when the shooting starts, the West rushes to pretend otherwise. “Right after Oct. 7,” says Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “the Biden administration began disconnecting the dots.”
While it distanced Iran from the attack, “the White House echoed the line that ‘Hamas is ISIS,’” Mr. Dubowitz says. “The more natural thing to say is ‘Hamas is Iran.’ But if the focus is on Iran, then the question becomes: What’s your Iran policy? What are you going to do about the head of the octopus?”
These questions became unavoidable when Iran attacked Israel directly last weekend, but Mr. Dubowitz, 55, has been asking them since 2003. While others focused on Iraq, he worked on Iran sanctions. He was the leading U.S. opponent of the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal and worked with the Trump administration on its “maximum pressure” strategy—which, to his disappointment, rarely went beyond sanctions.
In 2019 Iran announced sanctions against Mr. Dubowitz and his think tank, known as FDD, and accused them of “economic terrorism.” He has been living with security protection ever since. “In Washington, I’m called an ‘Iran hawk,’ ” he says, “and it’s so politicized that they think I must be a Republican, too. All I’ve done is try to make the case that the Islamic Republic is a threat to the region, its own people and the U.S., and that it needs to be dealt with, not wished away.” Nobody makes that case better than FDD.
Iran’s shadow-war strategy against Israel is effective. Since Oct. 7, the regime has used its proxies to shock Israel into war, divide its forces, prolong the fighting and bleed it politically, economically and militarily—all without firing a shot from Iranian territory and risking a response in kind. Until April 13, when Iran escalated in reply to an Israeli strike in Syria.
Israeli intelligence didn’t expect such a large response, Mr. Dubowitz says, but “clearly the dynamic was changing.” Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “had seen that Israel was isolated after three months of Biden beating up on Bibi”—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—“and we had 60 members of Congress calling for aid to be cut off. Israel was taking a beating, and I think Khamenei decided this was his opportunity to establish a new normal.”
The ayatollah “thought he would reinforce Israel’s isolation, but he has done the opposite. At least temporarily—very temporarily—Israel got out of the penalty box and Iran has gone in.” On the other hand, “Khamenei has shown only the tip of the iceberg of Iran’s capabilities, and already he has persuaded the U.S. to de-escalate and restrain Israel’s response.”
The escalation is new, but it follows a familiar pattern. “They’re doing what they do on the nuclear program. You keep breaking through red lines, and things that would’ve been intolerable 10 years ago are tolerable today.” The West once thought Iranian enrichment of uranium was intolerable. “Now, they’re enriching uranium to 60%, which is a stone’s throw away from weapons-grade.” Similarly, rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas were once intolerable. “Now, the goal is to normalize that Israel will have to face it directly from Iran.”
That’s why Israel had to attack Iran—a strike that had “an almost poetic symmetry,” as Mr. Dubowitz puts it. “ ‘Our air defenses worked, your expensive S-300 didn’t. You targeted our air force base, we hit your air force base,’ using much less to do much more damage,” and near a nuclear facility. Adding insult to injury, the strike came on Mr. Khamenei’s 85th birthday.
The scope of Israel’s reprisal was limited by political considerations. Israel sought to demonstrate its capabilities and change Iran’s risk calculus “without jeopardizing the U.S. support and regional coalition building.” In this regard as well, Mr. Dubowitz reckons the attack a modest success: “It shifts the onus back on Biden to deliver tough sanctions and diplomatic progress,” he says, “and reaffirms to the Saudis that Israel is the only country with the will and capabilities to take on Iran.”
Hamas’s attack was shocking in its savagery, but “Iran is the most important theater, and its nuclear-weapons program remains the overriding priority” in Mr. Dubowitz’s assessment. If Israel were forced to choose, “between Hamas’s four to six remaining battalions and Iran’s two dozen scientists working on nuclear weaponization, my strong recommendation would be to take out the scientists.”
“Imagine what Oct. 7 would’ve looked like under an Iranian nuclear umbrella,” he says. “A threat of nuclear escalation would lead Biden—or any U.S. president—to put immense pressure on Israel not to respond to any conventional attack.”
He invokes Ukraine: “One Iranian idea is to turn Tel Aviv into Kyiv—create a grinding war of attrition, cause as much damage as possible, drive out the most skilled and flexible Israelis, and leave behind an outmanned and outgunned rump that steadily loses support from the West, which, in the face of nuclear intimidation, limits Israel in how it can fight back.” How’s that for a nightmare scenario?
He worries part of the purpose of the war in Gaza is to distract. “What I found in Israel before Iran’s attack,” he says, “was that the nuclear issue wasn’t even on the back burner.” Busy with the war, “the Israelis hadn’t convened an interagency meeting on Iran’s nuclear program in six months.”
Mr. Dubowitz says Iran has enough enriched material “to break out to one bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in seven days, six bombs’ worth in a month.” And we’ve now seen a demonstration of Iran’s ballistic-missile capabilities: “ ‘These ones have conventional warheads,’ the Iranians were saying. ‘The next one may have unconventional warheads.’ ”
While the Biden administration “has its own acronym for ‘confidence-building measures’—CBMs,” the Iranians have an advanced program to develop ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles. They “aren’t to threaten Israel or the Gulf or Europe, because Iran can threaten them already with ballistic missiles,” he says. “They’ve got only one address: the U.S.A.”
The final task is attaching a nuclear warhead to the missile. Here, Mr. Dubowitz has a bomb of his own to drop: “I have been led to believe that Iran’s weaponization activities have begun. After a long pause during which Iran’s nuclear enrichment and missile program advanced, Iran is now taking preliminary steps that will help build a warhead. That is headline news,” he adds, “because it contradicts the longtime U.S. intelligence consensus, and it suggests the Iranians are even closer to a deliverable nuclear weapon than we had thought.”
Mr. Dubowitz says he has pressed U.S. officials. “I don’t get a straight answer in Washington, but I got a straight answer in Israel: ‘We have evidence, we have intelligence. They have begun preliminary work on the weapon.’ ”
Once the decision is made to build a warhead, Mr. Dubowitz says, the timeline for deployment has been 18 to 24 months. (A primitive device would take only six months.) “But those preliminary steps are important. The idea is to do advance work, with computer modeling and multipoint explosive detonation systems, that can be explained away with nonnuclear purposes. This advances the date for Iran, and limits the time the West would have to stop it.”
Iran has taken defensive steps, beginning to build a new nuclear facility in Natanz. “This one is underneath a mountain, and it is projected to go over 100 meters deep, buried in concrete, heavily fortified,” Mr. Dubowitz says. The concern is that “the Israelis won’t be able to bomb it, and even we, with our massive ordnance penetrators, won’t be able to destroy it.”
This calls for stopping it before it can be built, but it also raises larger questions: “Ultimately, the entire Israeli approach to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program has been to mow the grass. Just delay it and delay it and delay it.” That was effective as far as it went—for years we’ve heard Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons, and it never quite got there. But Iran grew stronger all the while.
“The conceptzia that was destroyed on Oct. 7—it’s also on the nuclear side,” Mr. Dubowitz says. “But we’re not prepared to do deterrence by punishment, rather than deterrence by denial or by deference—the Biden approach. Not the kind of severe punishment that would completely change Iran’s risk-reward calculus.”
How severe? “Deterrence by punishment isn’t only taking out a bunch of scientists. Khamenei needs to understand that his decision to build nuclear weapons will cost him his regime.”
The U.S. could try a more robust version of maximum pressure, “which includes providing maximum support to the Iranian people,” he says. “There are millions of Iranians who despise the regime. But when they took to the streets in 2009, yelling, ‘Obama, are you with us or with the dictator?’ Obama chose the dictator.” (After our interview, Mr. Dubowitz meets the exiled dissident Masih Alinejad, who was the target of an Iranian assassination plot on U.S. soil.)
“The Trump administration said the right things and provided some technical support, but very limited,” he continues. “Then Biden misses this huge opportunity with the Women, Life, Freedom protest movement” sparked by the 2022 murder of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini by Iran’s morality police. Mr. Dubowitz’s eyes close as he recalls how America stood by while the regime put down the protests: “Before the supreme leader trained, financed and armed Hamas to go rape and torture Israeli women, his thugs had been raping and torturing Iranian women.”
Even Israel has overlooked this Iranian weakness. “I’ve had many frustrating conversations with the heads of Israeli agencies who are in the right place” to aid dissidents, he says. “I always got this blank look: ‘Mark, you want us to be in the business of regime change?’ And I say to them, ‘I want you to be in the business of weakening your enemy. Are you in that business?’ ”
“You may not get lucky. The regime may not collapse,” Mr. Dubowitz says, “but it’s always good to put your enemy on defense instead of having it play offense.”
The Biden administration rejects that. “Its takeaway from the Trump years is that flexing of American muscle leads to Iranian nuclear expansion,” he says. Yet “almost all of Iran’s nuclear escalation since May 2018,” when Mr. Trump quit the Iran deal, “has occurred since President Biden was elected promising de-escalation.”
Since Mr. Biden stopped enforcing sanctions, Iran’s oil sales have increased tenfold. Tehran isn’t appeased. “Biden’s Plan A, a deal, has failed for three years. The bribes didn’t work. A longer deal didn’t work. A shorter deal didn’t work,” Mr. Dubowitz says, “but there is no Plan B from the administration. Only de-escalation.”
That leaves Israel to sort out the threats and take the blame. “Fundamentally, the Biden administration doesn’t believe in the use of power against Iran,” Mr. Dubowitz says. “That is why they loathe the Israeli approach, because Israelis, they don’t buy into this sort of CBMs, off-ramps, incentives, deference approach to Iran.”
For years, Israelis have argued that this Iranian regime will never be cajoled into abandoning its pursuit of Israel’s destruction. For that goal, Israelis said, Iran is willing to set the region ablaze and fight to the last Arab. “In a way,” Mr. Dubowitz says, “Khamenei did all of us a favor” with last weekend’s attack. “He has reconnected the dots. It turns out that it’s been the Islamic Republic all along. It’s a war between Israel and Iran.” Will Mr. Biden be able to cover up what has now been exposed?
Mr. Kaufman is the Journal’s letters editor.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
0:27
Paused
0:01
/
5:16
TAP FOR SOUND
Wonder Land: In 1986, Sen. Joe Biden mocked as ‘reckless’ Ronald Reagan's 'Strategic Defense Initiative,' a program to counter the ballistic missile threat. Israel ran with it, creating the 'Iron Dome' missile-defense system—the hero of Iran’s April 13 bombardment. Images: Bloomberg News/C-Span/Bettmann Archive Composite: Mark Kelly
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the April 20, 2024, print edition as 'Iran’s Threat Emerges Into Daylight'.
17. Beijing warns US after missile launcher reaches "China's doorstep"
Good thing we no longer have to worry about the INF treaty.
Beijing warns US after missile launcher reaches "China's doorstep"
Newsweek · by John Feng · April 19, 2024
China expressed "grave concern" on Thursday at the deployment of a U.S. missile system to the edge of the South China Sea, potentially putting Chinese territory within striking range.
The U.S. Army this month hailed the "historic first" arrival of a medium or mid-range capability launcher in the northern Philippines as part of an ongoing military exercise.
The "Typhon" transporter erector launcher can fire the Standard Missile 6 or Tomahawk Land Attack Missile. The latter is a long-range cruise missile with an operational range of over 1,000 miles, capable of reaching China-controlled territories in the South China Sea as well as military bases along its southern coast.
"China strongly opposes the U.S. deploying medium-range ballistic missiles in the Asia-Pacific and strengthening forward deployment at China's doorstep to seek unilateral military advantage," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a regular press briefing in Beijing.
"The U.S.'s move exacerbates tensions in the region and increases the risk of misjudgment and miscalculation. We urge the U.S. to earnestly respect other countries' security concerns, stop stoking military confrontation, stop undermining peace and stability in the region, and take concrete actions to reduce strategic risks," Lin said.
The Typhon battery, from the Army's 1st Multi-Domain Task Force out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, was delivered to northern Luzon—the Philippines island south of Beijing-claimed Taiwan—to be demonstrated at Salaknib, the annual two-week bilateral drills that began on April 8. The Typhon is not expected to be permanently stationed in the Philippines.
Capt. Ryan DeBooy, a spokesperson for the U.S. Army Pacific, said the deployment was "a pivotal aspect of this year's exercise," meant to "enhance Philippine maritime defense capabilities, while bolstering interoperability and readiness within the U.S.-Philippine alliance."
The U.S. Army Pacific and the U.S. Department of Defense did not immediately respond to separate written requests for comment.
A U.S. Army mid-range capability launcher from Charlie Battery, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, Long Range Fires Battalion, 1st Multi-Domain Task Force out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, arrives for its first... A U.S. Army mid-range capability launcher from Charlie Battery, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, Long Range Fires Battalion, 1st Multi-Domain Task Force out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, arrives for its first deployment in Luzon in northern Philippines on April 7. Capt. Ryan DeBooy/U.S. Army
The Typhon launcher is also known as the strategic mid-range fires, or SMRF, system, and is part of the Army's project to modernize what it calls long-range precision fires, military ground forces specialist Andrew Feickert wrote in an April 16 report prepared for the Congressional Research Service.
The Typhon is designed to hit targets located between short and long ranges, for which the Army has other weapons.
The Philippines, America's oldest treaty ally in Asia, has been involved in flare-ups with China's coast guard around disputed territories in the South China Sea.
U.S. President Joe Biden hosted Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. at the White House last week for bilateral talks and a first-ever trilateral summit with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan.
Tokyo, which has its own maritime disputes with Beijing elsewhere in the region, backed Manila and pledged closer economic and security coordination led by Washington.
"Facing the complex challenges of our time requires concerted efforts on everyone's part, a dedication to a common purpose, and an unwavering commitment to the rules-based international order," Marcos said.
Next Monday, the U.S. and the Philippines will kick off their largest annual drills, Balikatan, featuring allied forces from Australia and, for the first time in the exercise's history, France, according to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
Lin, the Chinese spokesperson, warned the Philippines to "be mindful of what the U.S. is truly after and the consequence of going along with the U.S."
"The Philippines needs to think twice about being a cat's paw for the U.S. at the expense of its own security interests, and stop sliding down the wrong path," he said.
The Chinese Embassy in Manila did not immediately respond to a written request for comment.
A Tomahawk land attack missile is launched aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur during a live-fire demonstration as part of exercise Pacific Vanguard on May 27, 2019, in the Philippine Sea. The... A Tomahawk land attack missile is launched aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Curtis Wilbur during a live-fire demonstration as part of exercise Pacific Vanguard on May 27, 2019, in the Philippine Sea. The Typhon system, deployed to the Philippines for the first time in April 2024, is capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles. Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Taylor DiMartino/U.S. Navy
Newsweek · by John Feng · April 19, 2024
18. China building new outpost on U.S. Doorstep, leaked documents reveal
Tit for tat? Where is the Monroe Doctrine when you want ti?
China building new outpost on U.S. Doorstep, leaked documents reveal
Newsweek · by Didi Kirsten Tatlow · April 19, 2024
News Caribbean United States China Cryptocurrencies
On a Caribbean island just 220 miles from the shore of the U.S. Virgin Islands, a black-clad Chinese security guard swept an arm at more than a thousand acres of woodland and a glittering, aqua-green marine reserve beyond.
"It's like a small country," he said in Chinese.
This natural paradise on the island of Antigua, where officials will study the thoughts of Xi Jinping, is about to be razed for a Chinese-run special economic zone. According to documents reviewed by Newsweek it will have its own customs and immigration formalities, a shipping port and a dedicated airline and will be able to issue passports. It will establish businesses offering everything from logistics to cryptocurrencies, facial surgery to "virology."
China, its state-owned companies and aligned private businesses are expanding rapidly in the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda and in other Caribbean countries in this strategic region long known as "America's third border," according to a Newsweek investigation of government and corporate documents as well as interviews with Antiguan leaders.
China's growing regional presence is potentially the greatest external challenge to the United States in the Americas since the Soviet Union set up in Cuba in the 1960s—and the U.S. military is concerned.
"We are aware that China may use its commercial and diplomatic presence for military purposes. In Asia, Africa and the Middle East, China has already abused commercial agreements at host-country ports for military aims; our concern is they may do the same in this region," a spokesperson for the Florida-based Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) told Newsweek.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of loans and grants from China and extensive construction by Chinese state-owned companies of critical infrastructure including ports, airports and water systems are turning Antigua—once considered part of America's "backyard"—into China's front yard, critics say.
A view of Antigua's coast from Boggy Peak, the country’s highest peak. A view of Antigua's coast from Boggy Peak, the country’s highest peak. Gemma Handy
Antiguan Prime Minister Gaston Browne was effusive in his praise for China and its leader Xi in a Newsweek interview in St. John's, capital of this nation of just 97,000 people and 170 square miles that is about the size of the New York City borough of Queens.
Western countries were not giving the help Antigua needed, Browne said.
"I see China, though, as a country that stands on truth, and a country that, you know, at least has some level of empathy for small states, and generally for poor and dispossessed persons globally," said Browne.
On a weeklong trip to China in January, Browne opened Antigua's embassy in Beijing—the countries have had diplomatic relations since 1983—and ministers signed at least nine memorandums of understanding on everything from granting maritime rights to Chinese shipping and sailors to committing Antiguan officials to study Xi Jinping Thought on Governance.
"One of the things that we have followed with Xi Jinping is he seems to have a base, a global view in terms of a common humanity," said Browne, who has been in power for a decade.
Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua meets with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing, January 2024. Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua meets with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing, January 2024. Prime Minister's Office
By backing its words with dollars China had become Antigua's "lender of first choice," offering 2 percent interest rates and a five-year moratorium on repayments, Browne told Newsweek. Antigua joined China's Belt and Road infrastructure initiative in 2018, one of the first among about half a dozen Caribbean nations, making it part of a global chain of influence managed from Beijing.
Antigua has traded its sovereignty, I think most of us believe, to China. I think China wants a foothold in more strategic places, as a superpower."
- Gisele Isaac, chairwoman of the United Progressive Party
Diplomats from Europe and Asia in the region suspect that China's interests in Antigua are more than just economic. Its new embassy in St. John's—dubbed The Fortress by Antiguans for its large size and tight security—may be a regional intelligence center alongside decades-old facilities that the U.S. says Beijing uses to spy from Cuba. While the diplomats declined to provide details, they said that because of close U.S. attention on Cuba, Antigua was both an expansion and a "fall back" position.
SOUTHCOM told Newsweek, "Given the breadth of investment into logistics infrastructure China has made in the Caribbean, we are concerned that China could task its state-owned enterprises and diaspora to conduct intelligence or influence operations against the U.S. and our partners in the region for military purposes. Those concerns are further heightened when you consider the Chinese Communist Party's practice of targeting, recruiting and bribing officials."
The Chinese embassy did not respond to emails requesting comment on China's relations with Antigua or whether there was an intelligence base in the embassy. A person answering the telephone declined to take questions. In Beijing in January before Browne's visit, foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning called Antigua "an important cooperation partner of China" in the Caribbean.
Browne told Newsweek that suggestions that China was operating an intelligence base were "utter rubbish."
In the past, the United States guarded its hold on the Americas closely. The 19th century Monroe Doctrine held that any intervention in the political affairs of a state in the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act. The world was brought to the brink of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 over U.S. objections to Soviet nuclear weapons deployments in Cuba. And in 1983, U.S. forces overthrew a pro-Soviet leader in Grenada.
"Traded its sovereignty"
Some Antiguans are uneasy at China's growing influence in the country, a former British colony built partly on slavery. It still has King Charles as its head of state, although it is planning a referendum on whether to change that.
"Antigua has traded its sovereignty, I think most of us believe, to China," said Gisele Isaac, chairwoman of the United Progressive Party, in an interview in her home outside the capital. "I think China wants a foothold in more strategic places, as a superpower."
"I think that this administration has become, and that's our concern, overly reliant on one partner, that partner being China," Isaac said.
Increasingly, people were afraid to speak out about the flourishing relationship especially if they did business through the China-built shipping port in St. John's, she told Newsweek: "Everybody feels like their testicles are in a vise; that if you say the wrong thing, if you align yourself the wrong way, you're putting yourself in danger," Isaac said. "At night, I switch on my alarm and say my prayers."
Algernon Watts, an opposition member of parliament and a radio show host, has similar concerns.
"In the Caribbean, money is king," he said. "China needs a firm grasp in the region, and Antigua is a more than willing partner."
"It's a bold move. The Caribbean is very strategic geography for the U.S. … Mao and Stalin could only have dreamed of the success they are now having."
Anne-Marie Brady, a professor of political science at the University of Canterbury
Several ministers interviewed by Newsweek declined to say how much Antigua owes China.
The Antigua Finance Ministry—Browne is also the finance minister—did not respond to an emailed request for figures. A loans tracker shows $176 million in Chinese loans through 2022. More is in the pipeline—for example Antigua will receive about $60 million from China for a water repiping project, one of the memorandums of understanding agreed in Beijing in January, Information Minister Melford Nicholas told Newsweek.
That already works out at more than $2,400 in Chinese loans per person in a country where annual gross domestic product per capita is about $19,300, according to the World Bank.
China has massively expanded its overseas footprint over the past decade through its trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, sealing its presence around the world. Critics of the program accuse China of pursuing colonization by stealth through locking countries in with loans they could not get elsewhere as it rivals the United States, for example in Laos, Sri Lanka and in African nations. China counters that its investment is about "win-win" cooperation.
China's growing presence in the Caribbean is a particular challenge to America, analysts say.
"It's a bold move. The Caribbean is very strategic geography for the U.S.," said Anne-Marie Brady, a professor of political science at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand who tracks the Chinese Communist Party worldwide and notes similarities in the Caribbean to China's courting of small island states elsewhere.
Brady also believes China's Xi is working hand in hand with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, saying: "Mao and Stalin could only have dreamed of the success they are now having."
China had been "very successful" at diplomacy in the Eastern Caribbean over the past five years said the spokesperson for SOUTHCOM, which is headquartered in Doral, Florida. "They may be seeking a large logistics foothold in the Eastern Caribbean to enable commercial activity in the Western Hemisphere."
White sand beaches
For Americans, the Caribbean might conjure images of white sand beaches and turquoise seas, honeymoons, rum and spicy grilled "jerk" chicken.
China sees a bigger value, said Evan Ellis, a professor of Latin American studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
"China inherently regards the Caribbean as a strategic place where it wants to be, and that it wants selectively to dominate without alarming the United States excessively," Ellis told Newsweek, adding that China had also built a web of friendly states including Dominica, Grenada, Barbados and, "to some extent," Jamaica.
"The U.S. has been monitoring it, but the situation has not really raised alarm bells in Washington, just because kind of the slow, low-key, gradual nature of that kind of accumulation of influence," Ellis said.
In a statement, the State Department told Newsweek: "The United States and Antigua and Barbuda maintain strong and historic ties," with "robust cooperation" in a regional security initiative to counter firearms trafficking and crime, and other efforts in climate and development.
Zone of influence
The new special economic zone, incorporated on January 16 in St. John's, starkly underlines Chinese ambitions in Antigua. Known by its acronym SEZH, it takes over from a previous Chinese venture that largely failed to develop the land. The government says it expects $100 million in fresh investment. The new owners have already acquired the assets of a local company—also owned by Chinese interests—for $25 million, according to documents seen by Newsweek.
Construction in the future economic zone in Antigua. Its coasts, waters and islands lie in a marine reserve. Construction in the future economic zone in Antigua. Its coasts, waters and islands lie in a marine reserve. Foster Derrick
The Special Economic Zone (Antigua & Barbuda) Holdings Ltd has secured privileges that resemble those of a small state in the northeastern corner of the island adjacent to Antigua's biggest military base—and a former U.S. base.
According to the terms of its government-issued license dated 2024, SEZH will set up an independent Zone Management Committee to provide "Customs, Immigrations and Police Services to and for the Zone." A fishing company "ocean monitoring team" will help the Antiguan coast guard to "regulate" territorial waters. There will be no restrictions on commercial activities—permissions will be granted by the committee, not by the Antiguan government—and zero taxes and customer and asset confidentiality.
Taking up 1,600 acres of land, triple that including the waters between islands, the zone will have the island's second commercial port after the one built in St. John's by China Civilian Engineering and Construction Company, a China state-owned company.
According to documents reviewed exclusively by Newsweek, a dedicated airline for the zone called ABSEZ International Airlines Ltd. was incorporated on January 31. In addition to carrying passengers and goods and even constructing buildings, it can undertake "any other business" that enhances its profits.
An "Antigua and Barbuda International CRYPTO Services Zone" will offer a full suite of cryptocurrency operations from mining to dealing. The focus on cryptocurrency echoes another Chinese-backed zone in the Marshall Islands—one that was stopped when the couple behind it were jailed for bribery.
Newsweek could not establish the full identities of all the investors and what links they might have to Chinese authorities.
Documents from a directors' meeting of the new zone company, seen by Newsweek, identify Duan Hongtao as a chairman. "Hongtao VIP777 Duan," an Antiguan citizen, is listed on the passenger manifest of a private plane that flew from London to Antigua around the time of the deals, with five businesspeople on board. Duan's name and his birth date match an Interpol red notice for a Chinese citizen who allegedly defrauded a bank in China of $300 million. Allegations of criminal activity have not previously been a bar to Chinese people abroad serving the interests of the ruling Communist Party.
Also on the plane: Chinese citizen Zhang Yu, or Peter Zhang, who had previously worked with China Railway Group, a state-owned enterprise. The independent Antiguan media Island Press Box first reported the flight.
A person called Changli Zhang—whom a zone guard identified to Newsweek as his boss—also attended the directors' meeting, the documents show. Contacted by telephone, Zhang said he was "just an ordinary worker" and declined to comment.
Another Chinese citizen involved in the zone was flying regularly between Antigua and the United Arab Emirates where he was engaged in another port project, according to current and former U.S. government sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The United States objected to what it suspected was the construction of a Chinese military facility in Khalifa port in the UAE, in 2021.
"There is a murky gray zone between what is legitimate business interest and to what extent these businesspeople are trying to serve the interest and agenda of the Chinese government," said Leland Lazarus, of Florida International University's Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy and an expert on China-Latin America relations.
China's front yard
China's footprint in Antigua and Barbuda grew fast during the last decade of rule by Browne's Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party.
In 2020, CCECC, a subsidiary of state-owned China Railway Construction Corporation, set up its regional headquarters in Antigua next to the national Sir Vivian Richards Stadium, also built by China. Chinese money rebuilt V.C. Bird International Airport.
There is a Confucius Institute at the Antigua branch of the University of the West Indies and the Chinese government offers coveted scholarships. About 88 Antiguan students are studying at universities in China, Nicholas said.
Charles Fernandez, the minister for tourism and aviation, told Newsweek that Chinese generosity contrasted with the United States, which he said offered only athletic scholarships: "As long as we can run, jump and skip."
The State Department told Newsweek that more than 150 Antiguans were studying at colleges and universities in the United States. It said it hosted college fairs and regularly assisted people "to access resources and scholarship opportunities."
"The Americans have never invested anything in Antigua. When they closed their last base, they took everything and left," Fernandez said, referring to a radar tracking station that closed in 2015.
New electric taxis and buses from China will arrive soon, with China's BYD auto company launching a local dealership in April, Browne said.
There is a murky gray zone between what is legitimate business interest and to what extent these businesspeople are trying to serve the interest and agenda of the Chinese government."
Leland Lazarus of Florida International University's Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy
Trouble in paradise
Apart from geopolitical concerns, the planned zone has also raised environmental worries.
The dark head of a giant sea turtle surfaces near Foster Derrick's boat, as the passionate environmentalist steers past the tangled mangroves of Antigua's biggest marine reserve, which the future zone intrudes on. Starfish and sponges pop in pink and orange on the seabed below.
Derrick has worked for years to protect the coasts and islands of the reserve which is home to the endangered Antiguan racer snake. Dredging and other damaging activities are specifically forbidden here, but also specifically permitted by the government-issued licence.
"It's absurd," said Derrick. "This is just a big land grab."
Already, a road has been built through some mangroves cutting them off from the fresh and sea water mix they need, thus killing them—bad for Antigua since mangroves play a vital role in protecting coastal areas during hurricanes, Derrick said.
As his boat rounded a headland marked by new buildings, a man all in black took out a mobile phone to film the environmentalist. Derrick laughed it off, but later called it "belligerent."
"My aim of trying to protect the environment is specifically for future generations," he said.
Asked how an economic zone can be built within a nature reserve, Fernandez pointed to new provisions for environmental protection in the licence order.
But the agreement also allows for the zone to expand.
Diplomatic fortress
China's new embassy on Antigua is already a symbol of its power. The five-acre compound—sold by the Antiguan government to China for one Eastern Caribbean dollar, or U.S. 40 cents – is so imposing that Antiguans and tourists stop to photograph its several yards-high concrete walls topped by more than 30 surveillance cameras and four layers of electrified wire. Metal wedge barriers guard two visible entrances.
Nothing else approaches this level of security in Antigua where a car can drive up to parliament unchecked.
Opened in Dec. 2022, China's very large and high-security embassy in low-rise, low-security Antigua has locals wondering what goes on inside - and driving by to take pictures Opened in Dec. 2022, China's very large and high-security embassy in low-rise, low-security Antigua has locals wondering what goes on inside - and driving by to take pictures Deirdre Kirsten Tatlow
Speaking on condition of anonymity, two regional diplomats said that they suspected the embassy was being used as an intelligence base, or a listening post.
Publicly available information about the number of people working at the embassy was "not in line" with its size: "We can reasonably think that there are hidden staff and that those people's portfolios will be hidden from sight too," said one.
SOUTHCOM said it had not identified technologies such as satellite "reference stations" that would equip it as a "listening post," but that it was verifying the extent of such Chinese structures in the Caribbean.
"We assess that any intelligence activities conducted by the People's Republic of China in the Caribbean will almost certainly be targeted at U.S. and regional commercial and military movements in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean," the spokesperson said.
A key reason for China to strengthen its presence is to further isolate Taiwan, which Beijing claims. Seven of the 12 states that recognise Taiwan are in the Caribbean and Latin American region. Each has a vote in the United Nations where China seeks to build support for its policies. Chinese diplomats from the Antigua embassy regularly approach officials in the Caribbean countries that have ties with Taipei, a diplomat in a neighbouring country said.
In comparison to China's imposing operation in Antigua, the U.S. shuttered its embassy in 1994, relocating to Barbados more than 300 miles and over an hour away by plane. The U.S. has a consular agent in Antigua—office hours are three half-days a week, according to the website. American diplomats fly in to conduct business with a laptop and a backpack.
The State Department plans to expand its diplomatic footprint in the Caribbean, it told Newsweek in an emailed statement.
"The Biden-Harris Administration has begun the process of establishing two new embassies and an additional diplomatic support presence in the eastern Caribbean," a spokesperson said, without specifying where or when. "This effort...recognizes that deepening our relationship with Caribbean nations requires regular exchange between our governments at all levels, and is in response to longstanding requests from our Caribbean partners."
Deepening ties
Working for ever-deepening cooperation with China, the agreements Browne and other ministers signed in Beijing include one for visa-free travel between the two countries.
Another is for vastly expanded business cooperation, part of plans for Antigua to become a Chinese shipping hub for the region. A third deepens media cooperation, and a fourth says joint seminars will be held in Antigua and China for officials to study Xi Jinping's thinking on governance and development.
Browne downplayed any ideological commitment, saying that it would not be mandatory to study Xi Thought but that it made sense, just as officials should understand the thinking of U.S. President Joe Biden.
"I can say definitively my government is not into any such ideology," he said. "We pursue what we consider to be bespoke governance."
"We are satellites of no one," he added. "In fact, we find the PRC to be far more respectful of us as a small state than other large countries globally. Some countries treat us as elegant nuisances, compared to China that treats us with mutual respect."
Gaston Browne, the prime minister of Antigua, said in an interview with Newsweek in his office in the capital St. John's, Mar. 14, 2024 that China was Antigua's "lender of first choice." Gaston Browne, the prime minister of Antigua, said in an interview with Newsweek in his office in the capital St. John's, Mar. 14, 2024 that China was Antigua's "lender of first choice." Deirdre Kirsten Tatlow
Newsweek · by Didi Kirsten Tatlow · April 19, 2024
19. 'New Axis of Evil' conflicts threaten US upheaval on eve of election
Excerpts:
Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank told Newsweek there is a "broader sense of unease that current crises foster in the American electorate," as multiple conflicts escalate and drag American forces into the line of direct fire.
"It's not as if Biden is in any way responsible," Kupchan—who served on the White House National Security Council under former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton—added. "But there is a sense that during his watch the world has become quite unruly."
"People don't sleep as well at night because things seem out of whack," he added. "On any given day of the week, you can grab the newspaper and on the front page is the front line in Ukraine, how many people died in Gaza last night, Iranian drones flying toward Israel, the United States and China at each other's throats. You'd say, 'I think I'll go back to bed.'"
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." (unknown but said to be erroneously attributed to George Orwell)
Or in today's national security environment is this the new quote "Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because politicians worship at the altar of the "gospel of de-escalation" and hope to avoid conflict."
'New Axis of Evil' conflicts threaten US upheaval on eve of election
Newsweek · by David Brennan · April 20, 2024
President Joe Biden is juggling significant conflicts worldwide as he tries to fight off a fierce challenge from former President Donald Trump, all the while trying to keep the U.S. out of another major war.
Members of the so-called "new Axis of Evil"—a play on former President George W. Bush's famous post-9/11 classification of Iran, North Korea and Iraq, broadened to include Russia and China while dropping Iraq—are engaged in both hot and cold conflicts as the presidential race picks up momentum.
In both Ukraine and the Middle East, long-time American adversaries are at war with American allies. And in East Asia, China and North Korea are threatening action against regional American partners, prime among them Taiwan and South Korea.
Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank told Newsweek there is a "broader sense of unease that current crises foster in the American electorate," as multiple conflicts escalate and drag American forces into the line of direct fire.
A U.S. soldier is pictured on patrol on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria's Kurdish-controlled north-eastern Hasakeh Province on December 11, 2023. American troops in the Middle East have been regularly targeted by Iranian-linked forces. A U.S. soldier is pictured on patrol on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria's Kurdish-controlled north-eastern Hasakeh Province on December 11, 2023. American troops in the Middle East have been regularly targeted by Iranian-linked forces. DELIL SOULEIMAN/AFP via Getty Images
"It's not as if Biden is in any way responsible," Kupchan—who served on the White House National Security Council under former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton—added. "But there is a sense that during his watch the world has become quite unruly."
"People don't sleep as well at night because things seem out of whack," he added. "On any given day of the week, you can grab the newspaper and on the front page is the front line in Ukraine, how many people died in Gaza last night, Iranian drones flying toward Israel, the United States and China at each other's throats. You'd say, 'I think I'll go back to bed.'"
Particularly concerning for the U.S. and its Western allies is the cooperation between their foes. Iranian drones are hitting targets in Ukraine, while Russian oil flows in record amounts to China. Moscow and Beijing have for years been protecting Iran and North Korea at the United Nations.
U.S. European Command Commander and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Christopher Cavoli noted this month that the four nations are forming "interlocking, strategic partnerships" opposed to American national security interests.
U.S. adversaries are increasingly cooperating, if not yet directly coordinating, in their geopolitical plays. If this devolves into multiple wars involving U.S. forces at one time, even the hegemonic American military could be badly stretched.
Clouds of War
Foreign policy does not win or lose U.S. presidential elections, so the old adage goes. But wars abroad are looming large in the American national conversation as November's election approaches, even as the country is consumed by partisan domestic issues and Trump's myriad legal challenges.
American voters are well aware of the destabilized global picture. A December poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 40 percent of respondents felt foreign policy should be a top focus of the government for 2024; around twice as many as one year previously. Twenty percent also expressed concern over direct U.S. involvement in foreign wars, versus 5 percent a year ago.
YouGov found in March that 22 percent of Americans believe it very likely that there will be another world war within the next five to 10 years, with another 39 percent saying it is somewhat likely. The sentiment is more common among Republicans (32 percent said a world war was very likely) than among Democrats (16 percent) or independents (20 percent).
The challenges for Biden—and for Trump, if he secures a second term in office in November—differ from theater to theater. But in all, America's footprint is vital in ensuring deterrence of its adversaries.
The freeze in U.S. aid to Ukraine has underscored how vital American support is to Kyiv's survival. President Volodymyr Zelensky said this month that his nation will lose its war against Russia unless the partisan gridlock over a $95 billion bill providing funding for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel is resolved.
President Joe Biden is pictured at the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 9, 2024. Biden has led the international support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's invasion, but... President Joe Biden is pictured at the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 9, 2024. Biden has led the international support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's invasion, but American support has not proved entirely reliable. Alex Wong/Getty Images
Kyiv finally received encouraging signals this week, with House Speaker Mike Johnson agreeing to put the package to a vote after months of stalling. But Ukraine still has a massive, costly, and difficult fight on its hands.
"Ukraine, we're probably looking at a stalemate," Kupchan said, even with the resumption of American aid.
Israel's excoriating assault on Gaza has horrified many Americans, as did the Hamas October 7 infiltration attack that prompted it. The subsequent conflict has expanded to include Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran, repeatedly involving attacks on American facilities and personnel across the region. Israel's tit-for-tat exchanges with Iran now pose the risk of a much larger and more destructive showdown.
Already, American troops have been bombarded by Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, while U.S. warships have shot down drones and missiles fired by Tehran-linked Houthi fighters in Yemen. Last weekend, U.S. forces were reportedly instrumental in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles destined for Israel.
China, meanwhile, is regularly probing Taiwanese defenses while asserting—violently at times—its claims in the South China Sea, while North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is ramping up ballistic missile tests, determined not to be overlooked.
"On North Korea and on Taiwan, managing the problem is the mantra," Kupchan said. "You don't resolve it, you don't push for resolution; you manage. And so, I think those two issues are unlikely to see any major change in the status quo."
Bullets and Ballots
The conflicts have a domestic political dimension. The partisan division over Ukraine is clear and may become more so as Trump—who has been consistently skeptical of backing Kyiv fully—ramps up to November.
Israel's war on Gaza has caused consternation within the Democratic Party, with progressives labeling the president "Genocide Joe" over his "ironclad" backing of Israel and failure to rein in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"In the Middle East, it's more complicated because of the backlash among progressives and Arab Americans about loss of life in Gaza," Kupchan said.
That backlash has come at the ballot box too. The recent Michigan Democratic presidential primary saw 13 percent of voters declaring themselves "uncommitted" to protest the White House's Gaza policy.
On China, Biden's apparent efforts to facilitate a thaw are also facing political headwinds, particularly given he will face a Trump who has been resolute in dealing with Beijing.
"Biden is going to feel a lot of electoral pressure to be quite confrontational with China," Kupchan said. "Democrats and Republicans are trying to outdo each other in going after Beijing.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march to condemn Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in Washington, D.C., on April 6, 2024. The conflict is proving politically thorny for President Joe Biden. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march to condemn Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in Washington, D.C., on April 6, 2024. The conflict is proving politically thorny for President Joe Biden. Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images
"The easiest thing to do is just have a rupture with the Chinese, throw the book at China, more economic tariffs, more export controls. The only problem with that is that it would intensify the estrangement that is already quite intense between Washington and Beijing."
Biden has cast himself as the grownup in the room, a foil to a more impulsive and pugnacious Trump. This cautious elder statesman brand may work for or against the incumbent come November.
"Republicans will try and twist the knife," Julie Norman, professor of politics and international relations at University College London, told Newsweek. "Biden had the low point with Afghanistan. I think he showed strong global leadership with Ukraine. And now he's kind of on the back foot again with Gaza."
"He always touted himself as the internationalist, as the statesman, very much in contrast to Trump," Norman added. "What I'm already hearing Republicans saying is, 'Look at all these problems in the world. When Trump was president, things were a lot calmer.'"
"It cuts both ways," Kupchan said. "That sense of dislocation could say, 'This is this is not a time when we want someone like Trump in the Oval Office."
Newsweek · by David Brennan · April 20, 2024
20. Beijing waging political warfare against government, business, experts tell House oversight panel
Beijing waging political warfare against government, business, experts tell House oversight panel
washingtontimes.com · by Bill Gertz
Premium
By - The Washington Times - Wednesday, April 17, 2024
China’s communist government is engaged in large-scale political warfare and influence efforts it calls united front operations that are seeking to subvert all sectors of the United States, according to an investigation by the House oversight committee.
“This is a huge problem,” said Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, during a hearing Wednesday that was the first public phase of a major investigation by the panel into Chinese influence operations.
Mr. Comer, Kentucky Republican, said the U.S. government has no plan to combat extensive Chinese influence operations and doesn’t appear to recognize the national security threat China’s activities pose.
Three former military and intelligence officials testified that Chinese influence operations are broad in both scale and targets and threaten the democratic system in the United States and throughout the world.
Retired Marine Corps Col. Grant Newsham, a former intelligence officer and expert on China, told the committee that China is working to break the two-ocean geographic barrier that has protected the United States from its enemies.
“The Chinese Communist Party is determined to take away that advantage,” Col. Newsham said. “Through a range of political warfare methods, it is embedding behind our lines, attacking us from the inside.”
Those attacks include chemical warfare through fentanyl exports; biological attacks through dangerous research such as the suspected laboratory leaks that likely triggered the COVID-19 pandemic; and economic warfare that uses trade and commerce to try to destroy the U.S. manufacturing and commercial sectors, he said.
“For the first time in our history, our distance can’t protect us,” he said. “We are being hit at home by a wide-ranging attack that is killing us by the tens of thousands and devastating our economies and society, and leaving us vulnerable at a national and personal level.”
Cyberattacks to steal technology and information with “territorial warfare” – purchases of U.S. land by Chinese-linked buyers — also are part of the political warfare, Col. Newsham said.
Infiltrating the United States is another element.
Col. Newsham said one of the more effective Chinese methods is psychological warfare.
“Psychological warfare is arguably the most important of the political warfare techniques,” he said. “Chinese psychological warfare seeks to change an opponent’s thinking and behavior in a way that is favorable to [People’s Republic of China] interests and objectives. It aims to weaken the opponent’s will and ability to resist through non-kinetic means.”
Chinese psychological warfare operations are designed to produce accommodation with the CCP and erode resistance to Chinese policies.
“It comes down to getting into our heads and disabling us from the inside,” Col. Newsham said.
Key CCP influence operations targeting the United States include several themes, including the ideas that “criticizing China is racist” and “the United States must have China’s help on climate change, North Korea, etc.,” he said.
“China has no intention of helping the United States on ‘climate change’ – since doing so would slow China’s growth – and, based on past experience, China doesn’t expect any real cost will be imposed on it for not complying,” Col. Newsham said.
Another theme is the false idea that China is no longer communist but capitalist, he said.
To counter Chinese political warfare, the government needs to relearn political warfare and repeal China’s permanent normal trade relations status. Chinese companies should be delisted from stock exchanges and all investment in China restricted and export controls strengthened, he said.
Peter Mattis, a former intelligence official who specializes in China affairs, said Beijing’s political warfare is strategic in seeking a new world order under control of the CCP.
China’s leaders seek “national rejuvenation” — a euphemism for global dominance — and a “community of common destiny for humanity” that seeks to extend the CCP’s rule over the rest of the world, Mr. Mattis said.
“To achieve these goals, Beijing harnesses all the tools of statecraft in a competitive endeavor — what we used to call political warfare,” he said.
“A key component of the CCP’s toolkit is united front work, which is a way of conducting policy, a theory of politics, and the policy bureaucracy to monitor, influence, and mobilize individuals outside the Party for its purposes.”
Chinese President Xi has called united front influence work to be a “magic weapon” for the CCP to overcome its capitalist enemies, Mr. Mattis said.
“Today we’re in a new Cold War,” said retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding, a former military attaché in China.
Gen. Spalding said a relaxation of American security systems has made American society and the international system vulnerable to relentless political influence campaigns from China as well as Russia, North Korea and Iran.
“The Chinese Communist Party and its proxies wage a global political war to influence the face of human civilization, using the tools of statecraft, business, economics, trade, finance, academia, and especially technology,” he said.
Chinese companies under control of the Communist Party are influencing American businesses and financial institutions, he said. Those companies in turn are influencing the American political process in ways that seek to maintain economic connections to the CCP, he said.
Universities and the U.S. educational system also are under CCP influence through Chinese grants and tuition for Chinese students, and scientists are being influenced to move technology to China.
Politicians at the local, state and federal levels also are influenced by Chinese money and promises of producing jobs for Americans, he said.
Chinese applications for handheld devices, such as shopping app Temu, are stealing personal data, while other platforms such as TikTok are influencing the thoughts and behaviors of Americans, sowing distrust of the political system and indoctrinating young people to Chinese narratives, Gen. Spalding said.
“This is not by accident, but through a measured socio-political model developed after thorough study of how the Soviet Union succumbed to western liberalism during the first Cold War,” he said.
“The Chinese Communist Party recognized [that] to undermine our republic, they must first establish a façade of friendship and cooperation, positioning themselves as partners on issues such as climate change and peace, while clandestinely manipulating the mechanisms established in the aftermath of WWII to expand their influence and control.”
Gen. Spalding said to avoid a future Chinese-controlled international tyranny, all institutions within the non-communist world must be free of CCP influence or face the slow disintegration of the nation.
The CCP is waging “dozens of forms of warfare against America, seeking the “destruction” of America, Mr. Comer said.
“By waging political warfare, the CCP seeks to weaken America so that we cannot effectively fight in a kinetic war,” Mr. Comer said. “China’s goal is plain: to defeat America.”
The main vehicle is united front operations that seek to mobilize agents and organizations through proxies — business leaders, cultural and political leaders, and other influential people.
Mr. Comer rejected claims of critics who say that exposing Chinese influence activities is racist toward Asians. “To that it is somehow racist or inappropriate for Congress to investigate the CCP threat is playing directly into the CCP’s hands, and people who use this tactic are doing exactly what the CCP wants in order to avoid scrutiny of or accountability for the CCP,” he said.
The Oversight Committee, through its investigation, wants to show the Biden administration that the threat posed by the CCP is grave and must be countered.
However, many Democrats at the hearing, led by ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, disagreed with the focus of the hearing on Chinese influence operations.
Several said Russian influence operations pose a more significant threat than those of China and said Republicans and former President Donald Trump are promoting Russian propaganda and election interference.
• Bill Gertz can be reached at bgertz@washingtontimes.com.
Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Click to Read More and View Comments
Click to Hide
washingtontimes.com · by Bill Gertz
21. Interview: The Three-Body Problem author Liu Cixin “My novel is not a metaphor for US-China tensions”
I really enjoyed the series on Netflix. I ordered the trilogy to read. Many interesting concepts to make you think.
One point of note is the Wallfacer. Planners finally get their due - they are given the highest stature with all the authorities and resources they require, without questions (A SAMS planner's dream). Planners are given the heist level of respect and responsibility. (note my sarcasm and attempt at humor). They are the only ones who know the plan in their mind (like reality today!) and the enemy cannot read their minds.
Why did you emphasize the Cultural Revolution in your book?
“It was necessary to mention the event to develop the story. The plot required a scenario where a modern Chinese person becomes completely disillusioned with humanity, and no other event in modern Chinese history seemed appropriate except the Cultural Revolution. It is disappointing that most participants of the Cultural Revolution did not repent, and the reason behind it is unclear.”
One point of note is the Wallfacer. Planners finally get their due - they are given the highest stature with all the authorities and resources they require, without questions (A SAMS planner's dream). Plannersar given the heist level of respect nad responsibility. (note my sarcasm and attempt at humor).
Interview: The Three-Body Problem author Liu Cixin “My novel is not a metaphor for US-China tensions”
https://www.chosun.com/english/long-reads-en/2024/04/20/6MLR5T6PCBEYPB4GSZMKTTD3MU/
Author of The Three-Body Problem - now a Netflix series - on AI, writing out of love for science rather than literature, and drawing inspiration from Arthur C. Clarke and Leo Tolstoy
By Lee Beulchan (Beijing),
The Chosun Daily
Published 2024.04.20. 00:10
To the question about the reason for the success of "The Three-Body Problem," Liu Cixin answered, "To this day, I still haven't figured out the reason for its success." To the question about the reason he wrote about the Cultural Revolution, he explained, "Because an event that modern Chinese people thoroughly disappointed about humanity is needed in the story."/Courtesy of Baidu Baike
“Consider the remarkable advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the new era in space exploration spearheaded by SpaceX founder Elon Musk. Humans have repeatedly created disasters throughout history, but we have emerged stronger from these adversities. This is humanity.”
The Chosunilbo interviewed science fiction writer Liu Cixin, 61, who is currently one of the most famous Chinese authors in the world. His sci-fi novel “The Three-Body Problem” was recently made into a Netflix series, which premiered on March 21 and quickly ascended to the number one spot in global rankings for TV shows. Previously, the Chinese adaptation of the novel, pronounced “San Ti” in Chinese, also enjoyed significant success after it aired on China’s CCTV in January last year.
Liu’s novels often incorporate major events from recent Chinese history. The Three-Body Problem includes a portrayal of the Cultural Revolution, a socialist campaign launched by Mao Zedong in 1966 and lasted until his death in 1976. The story unfolds with a Chinese scientist, disheartened by humanity’s failure to “cleanse” itself during the Cultural Revolution, sending a message to extraterrestrial beings. This leads to conflict between Earth and an alien civilization. The book was translated and released in the United States in 2014 and became famous as the novel “Barack Obama read on vacation.” It has sold over 30 million copies worldwide, including 3 million in English-speaking regions, making it the best-selling Chinese literary work published outside of China to date, according to the Guardian.
Barack Obama (left) met Liu Cixin while attending the Global Education Summit (GES) in Beijing, China, as former U.S. president in the fall of 2017. He asked about Liu Cixin's upcoming book and got his signed./Screenshot of CFI
Did you expect The Three-Body Problem to be this successful?
“I didn’t expect it at all. The publishers were even more surprised than I was. The book was published as a pure science fiction novel, and its target audience was Chinese sci-fi enthusiasts. I still haven’t figured out the reason for its success.”
Some say your novels serve as allegories or prophecies of real-world events. For instance, it has been argued that the second book of the Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy, “The Dark Forest”, depicts U.S.-China tensions.
“That’s not true. The Dark Forest portrays the conflict between humans and aliens. There’s confrontation but no cooperation. However, in real life, including between the U.S. and China, there is not only competition and opposition but also cooperation. While readers are free to interpret the story as they wish, I do not use science fiction to convey metaphors. My work is not a politically charged sci-fi novel like George Orwell’s 1984.”
Haven’t you met with Former U.S. President Barack Obama, an avid reader of ‘The Three-Body Problem,’ when he visited Beijing in 2017?
“I caught a glimpse of Obama once, but we didn’t exchange any words of substance. He had asked me to send him my latest book, but I couldn’t follow through without his contact information.”
The "The Three-Body Problem" trilogy, which was bought for 93 yuan (18,000 won) at a bookstore in Beijing./Lee Beul-chan
Where did you find the inspiration for your book?
“After reading an article on the three-body problem in physics, I felt compelled to craft a novel around it. This problem envisions a universe comprised of three mass-bearing points. While seemingly simple, when these points are subject to their own gravitational forces, predicting their future becomes impossible for current physics and mathematics. I pondered, ‘What if these points represented stars and civilizations?’ and thus, the novel was born.”
Your work is rich in physics elements. How did you navigate the depths of physics?
“To be frank, my grasp of physics isn’t exhaustive. I’m merely fond of it. In the eyes of experts, my understanding doesn’t reach a particularly high level.” (Liu, who graduated from The North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power (NCWU) in 1985 and pursued a career as a computer engineer, is known to have been captivated by astronomy since China’s first satellite launch in 1970. While majoring in hydroelectric power generation in college, he accumulated knowledge in physics.)
Do you consider yourself naturally gifted in literature?
“It’s average. I didn’t embark on novel writing out of a love for literature but rather out of a passion for science and technology, leading me to delve into science fiction. I didn’t have formal literary training, nor have I extensively consumed literary works.”
Are there any books that have left a significant mark on you?
“In the realm of science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ stands out. As for literature in general, Leo Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ left an indelible impression. Its sweeping portrayal of historical epochs and the profound weight of its narrative influenced my creative endeavors greatly. It’s a novel with a panoramic view of depicting an era. Nowadays, many writers become immersed solely in their circles, focusing even exclusively on personal experiences. They lack the ability to unfold grand narratives and possess narrow perspectives.”
How do you endeavor to broaden your horizons?
“I indulge in reading profound historical and scientific texts. I tend to explore Western history more extensively, especially as it intersects with science, thus granting me a deeper understanding.”
Will humanity ever face an existential threat like the ‘Three-Body Problem’?
“I don’t think we’re in a survival crisis compared to the past. Throughout history, events like the Black Death, which wiped out a third of Europe’s population, two world wars, and more severe nuclear threats have occurred. Considering these, humanity is getting stronger, and the risks are getting smaller. Even with recent issues like the coronavirus and conflicts such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we’re not entering a new disruptive period. Instead, it seems more like a return to the usual challenges of human history.”
What is the ultimate force changing the Earth and the universe?
“There is only one force that stands out. I think AI is likely to be the key technology that will change the world. AI primarily relies on data-driven probabilities rather than logical reasoning to make decisions. It’s not yet capable of governing humans as depicted in science fiction, and I doubt it ever will be.”
Graphics = Yang In-sung
How do you imagine AI impacting the future?
“The immediate impact will be the loss of human jobs, which will require a major shift in the traditional distribution of labor. In the past, when steam engines and automated machines came along, they just pushed people into other jobs, but now they’re taking away the opportunity to work at all. If we don’t reform distribution, we could have a disruption 10,000 times the size of the Luddite Movement (protesting against the use of machinery).”
Do you think China’s recent policies, like the common prosperity policy, are preparing for these changes?
“No. The Chinese government is trying to balance the poorer and more developed areas.”
In the ‘Three-Body Problem’, the Great Cultural Revolution plays a significant role. The opening scene of the Netflix adaptation depicts an astrophysicist being betrayed and killed by his student and wife, leading to controversy. Some in China are outraged, claiming the show “brings shame to China.”
Why did you emphasize the Cultural Revolution in your book?
“It was necessary to mention the event to develop the story. The plot required a scenario where a modern Chinese person becomes completely disillusioned with humanity, and no other event in modern Chinese history seemed appropriate except the Cultural Revolution. It is disappointing that most participants of the Cultural Revolution did not repent, and the reason behind it is unclear.”
A scene from a People's Court in China during the Cultural Revolution, formally known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (pictured above). A portrait of Mao Zedong hangs in the background, while the people being lynched have phrases such as "Black Gang," the counter-revolutionary, written around their necks. Below is a scene from the Netflix series "The Three-Body Problem," in which the stage of the People's Tribunal is lit up with slogans such as "Long Live Mao" and "Break the Old World, Build the New."/Courtesy of X and Netflix
What are your likes and dislikes about Netflix’s ‘The Three-Body Problem’?
“I enjoyed the part of the series where many characters were added, and their relationships were explored. However, it was strange how all these characters seemed to know each other already. Fighting against the alien invasion should be a collective effort of all humanity, but instead, it was depicted as if a group of classmates were drafted to fight against the aliens.”
How involved were you in the production of the Netflix series?
“I provided personal opinions as an advisor in the series. However, not all my suggestions were accepted due to the commercial nature of American dramas, and there was no need of them.”
The scenes depicting the Cultural Revolution were criticized on Chinese social media. What are your thoughts about it?
“The depiction of the series did not deviate from my original work. Wasn’t it depicted even less than in the novel? (While the Cultural Revolution scenes are detailed at the beginning of the translated version of the novel, they are somewhat pushed to the back and are less extensive in the Chinese version.)
Although mentioning the Cultural Revolution in China is quite sensitive, it has been brought up previously in two films by director Zhang Yimou set against its backdrop.”
How would you describe present-day China in your future books?
“As a time of rising, similar to the early 20th century in the United States. China is a country with a strong ‘futurism’, meaning a dedication to move forward and change.”
What changes are China and the world undergoing now?
“Through the advancement of AI , we will come to realize that intelligence and knowledge, which were once thought to be exclusive to humans, are no longer limited to us. Speaking of China’s progress, it has started to view itself as a part of the global community. Its perspective has expanded to include the entire human race. I have a strong belief that China will become more open and interconnected, ultimately blending in with the rest of the world.”
Liu worked at a power plant in Shanxi Province for 30 years from the 1980s while writing novels. Before marrying a female colleague from the same power plant in 1994, he lived in a two-person dormitory. He worked alone as a computer engineer on the fourth floor of the power plant. “I used to write until 1 a.m. after work, and since I was in the office with a computer, my colleagues thought I was addicted to gaming,” he said.
Why did you continue to work at the power plant even after becoming famous?
“The Chinese science fiction publishing market is small. I hadn’t seen much money until 2010 (when the third part of The Three-Body Problem was published). When submitting stories to magazines, the payment was only 150 yuan (about $21) per 1,000 characters. For novels, the money received from each book sold was about 2 yuan.”
Wasn’t it mentally easier to write as a side job while working at the factory?
“It was so hard. I had no time to write novels while working at the factory. As I got older, my physical strength also depleted. I tried to make sure no one knew I was writing novels, to avoid gossip about being given special treatment or concerns about holding a second job.”
A power plant in Shanxi province, China where Liu Cixin worked as a computer engineer for 30 years until 2010./Weibo
A poster for the Netflix drama series "The Three-Body Problem," based on the novel that Liu Cixin wrote when he was a software engineer at a power plant in Shanxi province China./Courtesy of Netflix
Why don’t you live in major cities like Beijing or Shanghai, where a sci-fi novelist might benefit from witnessing technological advancements? (He currently lives in a remote city in Shanxi Province.)
“Science fiction master Arthur C. Clarke lived his entire life in a fishing village in Sri Lanka. Living in a small city has many advantages, such as simpler social relationships. I don’t meet friends even once a month. My wife is also not keen on city life.”
Doesn’t your daughter take pride in you?
“My daughter is a first-year graduate student studying environmental engineering. Although she is a STEM student, she is not interested in science fiction. She keeps the fact that I’m her father hidden at school because she worries that if others or the school find out, I might be called in to give special lectures.”
How long does it take to write a novel?
“I think it takes a long time; it usually took me about a year per novel. Each part of The Three-Body Problem took one year. When the first book of The Three-Body Problem was serialized in a magazine in 2006, it was already in a finished state. Short stories take about two weeks to complete, but the time spent thinking is longer than the time spent writing.”
What are you writing now?
“After ‘The Three-Body Problem,’ I find it difficult to write anything better. It’s a common experience for writers at their peak. I’ve preserved all my work and have published everything I’ve written. I aim to create a book that meets my own standards.”
Are you a member of the Communist Party?”
“No, I’m neither a party member nor hold any other political or governmental positions.”
What is the power of science fiction, and what do you want to achieve through literature?”
“Science fiction can ignite readers’ imagination and instill a desire for the unknown. As China aims to become an innovative nation, the science fiction novel market is expected to grow. As a writer and a science fiction enthusiast, I want to shock readers with my imagination of the future universe. I want to show that humans are tiny in the universe. However, the power of science and knowledge will make humanity as vast as the universe in 100 to 200 million years.”
Please evaluate South Korean science fiction works. What have you seen, and how has it influenced you?
“I’ve been impressed by South Korean science fiction films like ‘The Host,’ ‘Snowpiercer,’ and ‘Space Sweepers.’ South Korea has emerged as a leading producer of high-quality science fiction films outside of Hollywood, particularly because they embrace ambitious narratives similar to those found in Chinese and Japanese works. I also occasionally read Korean science fiction novels, including those by Kim Cho-yeop.”
22. The Big Five - April 20 Edition by Mick Ryan
THE BIG FIVE
The Big Five - April 20 Edition
A weekly guide to new readings on modern war and adapting to win
https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-big-five-april-20-edition?utm=
MICK RYAN
APR 20, 2024
Another interesting week, where we have finally seen the Israeli response to last week’s Iranian missile and drone attack against various targets in Israel, and the final stages of the Ukraine assistance bill going before Congress.
This week, a variety of topics are covered in the Big Five. They range from AI and drones in warfare, the future of Russia, as well as the subject of strategic influence. I have also included a link to the new Australian National Defence Strategy.
If you have time for only one of these, I recommend the first piece from Peter Singer.
Happy weekend reading!
1. The AI revolution is already here
“In just the last few months, the battlefield has undergone a transformation like never before, with visions from science fiction finally coming true. Robotic systems have been set free, authorized to destroy targets on their own. Artificial intelligence systems are determining which individual humans are to be killed in war, and even how many civilians are to die along with them.” So begins Peter Singer’s excellent, and too short, exploration of how AI is already being used to find and target humans and equipment on the modern battlefield. He poses the important question of how far are we willing to go in allowing this technology to select humans for death. It is a subject with profound ethical implications. Read the full article here.
2. Malign Influence Operations Aimed at U.S. Elections
This week, Microsoft released a report that explores the efforts of Russia, and China, to interfere with U.S. elections and to shape popular opinion on support for Ukraine. It also briefly covers the use of generative AI in these strategic influence operations. A short article, you can read it here.
3. Five Potential Russian Futures
In Foreign Affairs this week, an interesting article on potential future scenarios for Russia. As the author notes, “five possible futures for Russia are currently imaginable, and the United States and its allies should bear them in mind.” It’s a long piece, but well worth your attention. You can read the full article here.
4. Avoiding Strategic Miscalculation
An article from Parameters, one of my favourite military journals. In this piece, the author explores how institutions can build better strategic thinkers who can then improve the overall performace of organisations in their strategic thinking and planning. Having also written on this topic previously, I know it is a hard area to get right. But, try me must! You can read the piece here.
5. Australia’s New National Defence Strategy
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the new National Defence Strategy that was released this week. Launched by Australia’s Defence Minister mid-week, the new strategy is largely a continuation of the long-standing Australian defence policy of deterrence by denial, a high tech defence force and the maintenance alliances and regional partnerships. It was accompanied by the release of the revised Integrated Investment Plan, which explains the military procurement program over the next decade. If you want to understand the trajectory of the Australian Defence Force’s capability, and how Australia thinks about its defence, you can read both documents here.
23. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 19, 202
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-19-2024
Key Takeaways:
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled Russia’s intent to seize Kharkiv City in a future significant Russian offensive operation, the first senior Kremlin official to outright identify the city as a possible Russian operational objective following recent Ukrainian warnings that Russian forces may attempt to seize the city starting in Summer 2024.
- Ukrainian officials announced that Ukrainian forces downed a Russian aircraft as it conducted missile strikes against Ukraine for the first time overnight on April 18 to 19, demonstrating a capability that may constrain how Russia conducts its strike campaign against Ukraine.
- Ukrainian air defense capabilities remain limited and degraded, however, allowing Russian aircraft to operate freely without threat on certain critical areas of the front.
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that Ukraine requires Western provisions of artillery ammunition, air defense materiel, long-range artillery and missile systems, and fighter aircraft as Ukrainian constraints continue due to delays in US military assistance.
- Pro-Russian Moldovan actors continue to set conditions to justify possible future Russian aggression in Moldova as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov compared Moldova to Ukraine and Armenia.
- Russian forces recently made confirmed advances near Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Donetsk City.
- The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continues to expand the newly reformed Leningrad Military District (LMD) in preparation for an anticipated future large-scale conventional conflict with NATO.
- Russian officials continue to forcibly deport and Russify Ukrainian children as Ukrainian authorities work to return deported children to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 19, 2024
Apr 19, 2024 - ISW Press
Download the PDF
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 19, 2024
Angelica Evans, Grace Mappes, Christina Harward, Riley Bailey, and George Barros
April 19, 2024, 6:35pm 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.
Click here to see ISW’s 3D control of terrain topographic map of Ukraine. Use of a computer (not a mobile device) is strongly recommended for using this data-heavy tool.
Click here to access ISW’s archive of interactive time-lapse maps of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These maps complement the static control-of-terrain map that ISW produces daily by showing a dynamic frontline. ISW will update this time-lapse map archive monthly.
Note: The data cut-off for this product was 1:00pm ET on April 19. ISW will cover subsequent reports in the April 20 Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled Russia’s intent to seize Kharkiv City in a future significant Russian offensive operation, the first senior Kremlin official to outright identify the city as a possible Russian operational objective following recent Ukrainian warnings that Russian forces may attempt to seize the city starting in Summer 2024. Lavrov stated during a radio interview with several prominent Russian state propagandists on April 19 that Kharkiv City “plays an important role” in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s idea of establishing a demilitarized “sanitary zone” in Ukraine to protect Russian border settlements from Ukrainian strikes.[1] Lavrov stated that Putin has very clearly stated that Russian forces must push the frontline far enough into Ukraine – which Lavrov explicitly defines as into Kharkiv Oblast – to place Russian settlements outside of the Ukrainian strike range. This requirement is a very vague definition that could include the entirety of Ukrainian territory as long as an independent Ukrainian state exists and is willing to defend itself. Lavrov stated in response to a question about where Russian forces will go after creating a “sanitary zone” that Russian authorities are “completely convinced” of the need to continue Russia’s war against Ukraine. Lavrov responded in seeming agreement to a comment from one of the interviewers, who suggested that Lavrov’s earlier remarks meant that Russian forces will have to continue to attack further into Ukraine after creating the “sanitary zone” to protect the settlements that would then be within the zone and Ukrainian strike range. Lavrov’s remarks suggest that the Kremlin will likely use the idea of a constantly shifting demilitarized “sanitary zone” to justify Russian offensive operations further and further into Ukraine.
Prominent Russian propagandist and state television host Olga Skabeyeva framed Russia’s drone and missile strikes against Kharkiv Oblast as part of Russia’s efforts to create the “sanitary zone” during a speech on April 19, suggesting that additional prominent Kremlin mouthpieces are also laying the informational groundwork to justify ongoing Russian strikes and a future offensive operation against Kharkiv City under the pretext of defending Russian citizens.[2] Ukrainian officials, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, have recently identified the threat of a possible Russian summer offensive operation aimed at seizing Kharkiv City.[3] ISW continues to assess that a Russian offensive operation to seize Kharkiv City would be an extremely ambitious undertaking that would pose significant challenges to both the Russian forces responsible for the effort and to the wider Russian campaign in Ukraine.[4] ISW also assesses that US military assistance is vital to Ukraine’s ability to defend against any summer Russian offensive operation, including against Kharkiv City.[5]
Ukrainian officials announced that Ukrainian forces downed a Russian aircraft as it conducted missile strikes against Ukraine for the first time overnight on April 18 to 19, demonstrating a capability that may constrain how Russia conducts its strike campaign against Ukraine. Ukrainian Air Force Commander Lieutenant General Mykola Oleshchuk announced on April 19 that Ukrainian forces downed a Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bomber that had launched Kh-22 cruise missiles against Ukraine.[6] The Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) stated that Ukrainian forces shot down the Tu-22M3 at a distance of 300 kilometers from Ukraine with the same means that Ukraine used to down two Russian A-50 long-range radar detection aircraft.[7] Ukrainian outlet RBK-Ukraine reported that Ukrainian security sources stated that Ukrainian forces used S-200 air defense systems to down the Tu-22M3.[8] The GUR reported that the Tu-22M3 crashed in Stavropol Krai, where footage shows the plane losing altitude and crashing.[9] GUR Spokesperson Andriy Yusov stated that the downing of the Tu-23M3 compelled another Russian Tu-22M3 to turn around and noted that it is “practically impossible” for Russia to manufacture new Tu-22M3 bombers.[10] Russian forces reportedly had roughly 60 Tu-22 strategic bombers as of 2023.[11]The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) acknowledged the plane crash but attributed it to a technical malfunction rather than Ukrainian forces, and Russian milbloggers largely coalesced around the MoD’s narrative.[12] Stavropol Krai officials reported that the crash killed one Russian pilot and inflicted non-life-threatening injuries on two others and that a fourth crewmember remains missing.[13]
Ukrainian air defense capabilities remain limited and degraded, however, allowing Russian aircraft to operate freely without threat on certain critical areas of the front. Russian milbloggers have recently amplified multiple pieces of video footage, including on April 19, showing Russian Su-25 and Su-34 aircraft operating at low altitudes near Chasiv Yar, Donetsk Oblast and striking Ukrainian positions to support Russian advances in the area, and Russian milbloggers have praised Russian aircraft for enabling relatively quick Russian advances in the area since at least late March 2024.[14] The ability of Russian aircraft to operate over 100 kilometers deep in Ukrainian airspace near the frontline without sustaining significant losses indicates that Ukrainian air defenses in the area are currently insufficient to deter or deny Russian aircraft from operating on the front line. The Ukrainian capability to conduct long-range strikes to down Russian strategic aircraft conducting combat operations may temporarily constrain Russian aviation operations as the previous downing of tactical aircraft has achieved.[15] This Ukrainian strike capability, however, is unable to compensate for Ukraine’s critical air defense shortages across the theater. Ukrainian forces still must husband materiel and prioritize allocating its limited air defense assets to some areas of the theater over others at great expense, allowing Russian aviation to support more consistent and rapid gains on the ground, including near Chasiv Yar.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that Ukraine requires Western provisions of artillery ammunition, air defense materiel, long-range artillery and missile systems, and fighter aircraft as Ukrainian constraints continue due to delays in US military assistance.[16] Zelensky addressed the Ukraine-NATO Council on April 19 and reiterated that Ukraine needs a minimum of seven additional Patriot air defense systems to defend against Russia’s ongoing missile and drone strike campaign and called on Western countries to fulfill their promise to deliver one million artillery shells to Ukraine.[17] Zelensky added that long-range missiles and artillery systems are crucially needed to improve Ukrainian long-range strike capabilities and that Ukraine requires a sufficient number of fighter aircraft to contend with Russian aviation.[18] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that several unspecified NATO members made unspecified commitments during the Ukraine-NATO Council meeting to provide additional air defense, artillery, deep precision strike, and drone materiel to Ukraine.[19]
Ukrainian artillery shortages are allowing Russian mechanized forces to make marginal tactical gains, and Ukraine’s degraded air defense capabilities are permitting Russian aviation to heavily degrade Ukrainian defenses along the front through glide bomb strikes.[20] Ukrainian officials have highlighted promised F-16 fighter aircraft as a crucial element of a combined air defense system that can intercept more Russian missile and drone strikes and constrain Russian tactical aviation operations.[21] Ukrainian forces have previously leveraged NATO 155mm artillery systems and ammunition capable of striking targets at longer ranges than Soviet equipment to conduct superior counterbattery fire, and more effective long-range artillery systems would support sustained effective Ukrainian counterbattery operations.[22] Ukrainian forces have previously conducted several successful interdiction efforts against Russian forces with Western-provided missile systems and have indicated that they are prepared to resume more regular interdiction efforts should Ukraine receive sufficient provisions of long-range missiles.[23] ISW assesses that continued US delays in security assistance to Ukraine are limiting Ukraine‘s ability to conduct effective defensive operations while offering Russian forces increasing flexibility to conduct offensive operations — a dynamic that can lead to compounding and non-linear opportunities for Russian forces to make operationally significant gains in the future.[24]
Pro-Russian Moldovan actors continue to set conditions to justify possible future Russian aggression in Moldova as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov compared Moldova to Ukraine and Armenia. The People’s Assembly of Gagauzia, the pro-Russian autonomous region in Moldova, appealed to the Moldovan Parliament on April 19 to grant the Russian language the special legal status of a language of interethnic communication in Moldova.[25] Kremlin-affiliated Governor of Gagauzia Yevgenia Gutsul claimed in a statement to Kremlin newswire TASS that the Moldovan government is ”Russophobic” and will resist this initiative.[26] The Gagauzian appeal is likely part of Kremlin efforts to set information conditions to blame Moldova for discriminating against Russian speakers and justify future Russian aggression in Moldova as necessary to protect Russia’s ”compatriots abroad.” Lavrov claimed during a radio interview with Russian state media on April 19 that the West made Moldovan President Maia Sandu “openly drag Moldova into NATO, either directly or through unification with Romania” and that the West did the same with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.[27] Lavrov criticized both Moldova’s and Armenia’s moves towards the West and urged them to rethink their decisions by claiming that the West will force its citizens to fight in a possible future war against Russia. Russian officials have recently claimed that the West is ”dragging” the South Caucasus region into a ”geopolitical confrontation” between Russia and the West and explicitly threatened Armenia over Armenian outreach to the West.[28] Lavrov’s comparison of the Moldovan government to both the Armenian and Ukrainian governments is likely a tacit threat. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is likely trying to destabilize Moldovan society, attack Moldova’s democratic government, and prevent Moldova’s accession to the European Union.[29]
Key Takeaways:
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled Russia’s intent to seize Kharkiv City in a future significant Russian offensive operation, the first senior Kremlin official to outright identify the city as a possible Russian operational objective following recent Ukrainian warnings that Russian forces may attempt to seize the city starting in Summer 2024.
- Ukrainian officials announced that Ukrainian forces downed a Russian aircraft as it conducted missile strikes against Ukraine for the first time overnight on April 18 to 19, demonstrating a capability that may constrain how Russia conducts its strike campaign against Ukraine.
- Ukrainian air defense capabilities remain limited and degraded, however, allowing Russian aircraft to operate freely without threat on certain critical areas of the front.
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that Ukraine requires Western provisions of artillery ammunition, air defense materiel, long-range artillery and missile systems, and fighter aircraft as Ukrainian constraints continue due to delays in US military assistance.
- Pro-Russian Moldovan actors continue to set conditions to justify possible future Russian aggression in Moldova as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov compared Moldova to Ukraine and Armenia.
- Russian forces recently made confirmed advances near Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Donetsk City.
- The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continues to expand the newly reformed Leningrad Military District (LMD) in preparation for an anticipated future large-scale conventional conflict with NATO.
- Russian officials continue to forcibly deport and Russify Ukrainian children as Ukrainian authorities work to return deported children to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
We do not report in detail on Russian war crimes because these 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 the Ukrainian population and specifically on combat in Ukrainian urban areas. We utterly condemn Russian violations of the laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions and crimes against humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.
- Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine (comprised of two subordinate main efforts)
- Russian Subordinate Main Effort #1 – Capture the remainder of Luhansk Oblast and push westward into eastern Kharkiv Oblast and encircle northern Donetsk Oblast
- Russian Subordinate Main Effort #2 – Capture the entirety of Donetsk Oblast
- Russian Supporting Effort – Southern Axis
- Russian Air, Missile, and Drone Campaign
- Russian Mobilization and Force Generation Efforts
- Russian Technological Adaptations
- Activities in Russian-occupied areas
- Ukrainian Defense Industrial Base Efforts
- Russian Information Operations and Narratives
- Significant Activity in Belarus
Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine
Russian Subordinate Main Effort #1 – Luhansk Oblast (Russian objective: Capture the remainder of Luhansk Oblast and push westward into eastern Kharkiv Oblast and northern Donetsk Oblast)
Positional fighting continued on the Svatove-Kreminna line on April 19, but there were no changes to the frontline in the area. Positional engagements occurred southwest of Svatove near Tverdokhlibove; near Kreminna; west of Kreminna near Terny, Torske, and Yampolivka; and south of Kreminna near Bilohorivka.[30] Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets reported that elements of the Russian 47th Tank Division (1st Guards Tank Army [GTA], Moscow Military District [MMD]) have completed regrouping in the Kupyansk direction; elements of the 752nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (3rd Motorized Rifle Division, 20th Combined Arms Army, [CAA], MMD) are fighting southwest of Svatove near Nadiya; and elements of the 254th and 283rd motorized rifle regiments (144th Motorized Rifle Division, 20th CAA) are attacking Terny from the east and southeast.[31]
Russian Subordinate Main Effort #2 – Donetsk Oblast (Russian objective: Capture the entirety of Donetsk Oblast, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas)
Russian forces reportedly advanced northeast of Bakhmut on April 19, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area. Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets stated on April 19 that elements of the Russian Southern Grouping of Forces are attempting to push Ukrainian forces out of Bilohorivka (south of Kreminna) in order to break through to the area near Zvanivka (southwest of Siversk) and set conditions for future Russian offensive operations towards Siversk.[32] Mashovets stated that the Russian military command has deployed most of the 2nd Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) Army Corps (AC), including elements of its 6th, 7th, and 123rd motorized rifle brigades, supported by elements of the 106th Airborne (VDV) Division’s 51st, 119th, and 137th VDV regiments, to the Siversk direction. Mashovets stated that elements of the 51st and 119th VDV regiments advanced southeast of Rozdolivka (south of Siversk) and that elements of the 123rd Motorized Rifle Brigade advanced several hundred meters south of Vyimka (southeast of Siversk). Mashovets stated that elements of the 7th Motorized Rifle Brigade were unable to push Ukrainian forces out of positions west of Bilohorivka and that elements of the 123rd Motorized Rifle Brigade and 137th VDV Regiment have been unable to advance near Spirne (southeast of Siversk) and south of Fedorivka (southwest of Siversk), respectively. Mashovets stated that elements of the 6th Motorized Rifle Brigade have slowed their rate of advance in the Zolotarivka-Verkhnokamyanka direction. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces unsuccessfully attacked northeast of Bakhmut near Verkhnokamyanske, Spirne, and Vyimka.[33]
Russian forces recently advanced near Chasiv Yar amid continued fighting on April 19. Geolocated footage published on April 19 indicates that Russian forces advanced within southwestern Bohdanivka (northeast of Chasiv Yar).[34] Fighting continued north of Chasiv Yar near Kalynivka; near the Novyi Microraion (eastern Chasiv Yar) and the Kanal Microraion (easternmost Chasiv Yar); east of Chasiv Yar near Ivanivske; southeast of Chasiv Yar near Klishchiivka; and south of Chasiv Yar near Niu York.[35] A Russian milblogger claimed that half of the dacha area north of the Kanal Microraion is a contested ”gray zone.”[36] Russian sources claimed that Russian forces continued to conduct air strikes, including with guided glide bombs, on Chasiv Yar.[37] Mashovets stated that Russian forces are simultaneously attacking towards Bohdanivka-Kalynivka, towards the Kanal Microraion, along the T0504 (Bakhmut-Chasiv Yar) highway northwest of Ivanivske, from Ivanivske, and between Ivanivske and Klishchiivka towards the Siverskyi-Donetsk Donbas canal.[38] Mashovets stated that elements of the Russian 11th VDV Brigade are operating northwest of Ivanivske and that elements of the 331st VDV Regiment (98th VDV Division) are operating near the Kanal Microraion. Mashovets stated that elements of the 200th Motorized Rifle Brigade (14th AC, Leningrad Military District [LMD]) and 102nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (150th Motorized Rifle Division, 8th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]) are also operating near Chasiv Yar.[39]
The Russian Southern Grouping of Forces have reportedly lost a significant number of armored vehicles during recent intensified Russian mechanized assaults. Mashovets stated that the number of available tanks within the Russian Southern Grouping of Forces in the Siversk, Chasiv Yar, and Kurakhove directions has decreased significantly to less than 650 tanks (including those that are damaged, temporarily disabled, and undergoing repairs) in recent weeks.[40] Mashovets stated that Russian forces committed reserves into battle in the Siversk, Chasiv Yar, and Kurakhove directions as part of ”massive” mechanized assaults that reduced the number of ”comparatively combat-ready" armored fighting vehicles in the Southern Grouping of Forces to no more than 1,850 vehicles.
Russian forces recently advanced west of Avdiivka amid continued fighting in the area on April 19. Geolocated footage published on April 10 indicates that Russian forces marginally advanced within southern Semenivka (west of Avdiivka).[41] Russian sources claimed that Russian forces also advanced northwest of Avdiivka near Novokalynove, Ocheretyne, and Berdychi; west of Avdiivka near Tonenke, and southwest of Avdiivka near Netaylove.[42] Another Russian milblogger claimed that there is no evidence of Russian advances near Netaylove, however.[43] ISW has not observed visual confirmation of these various Russian claims. Fighting continued northwest of Avdiivka near Novokalynove, Ocheretyne, Novobakhmutivka, Berdychi, and Semenivka; west of Avdiivka near Umanske; and southwest of Avdivika near Pervomaiske, Vodyane, Netaylove, and Nevelske.[44]
Russian forces recently advanced southwest of Donetsk City amid continued positional engagements west and southwest of Donetsk City on April 19. Geolocated footage published on April 18 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced west of Solodke (southwest of Donetsk City).[45] Ukrainian and Russian sources stated that positional engagements continued west of Donetsk City near Heorhiivka and Krasnohorivka and southwest of Donetsk City near Pobieda and Novomykhailivka.[46]
Positional engagements continued in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area on April 19, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area. Ukrainian and Russian sources stated that positional engagements continued south of Velyka Novosilka near Staromayorske and Urozhaine.[47] A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces advanced near Staromayorske, but ISW has not observed visual confirmation of this claim.[48] Elements of the Russian 57th Motorized Rifle Brigade (5th CAA, Eastern Military District [EMD]) are reportedly operating near Vuhledar.[49]
Russian Supporting Effort – Southern Axis (Russian objective: Maintain frontline positions and secure rear areas against Ukrainian strikes)
Positional fighting continued near Robotyne and northwest of Verbove (east of Robotyne) in western Zaporizhia Oblast on April 19.[50]
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated on April 18 that an unspecified drone targeted a training facility at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) but did not cause any damage or casualties.[51] The IAEA noted that this was the third unspecified drone strike targeting the ZNPP in recent weeks.[52]
Positional fighting continued in east (left) bank Kherson Oblast, including near Krynky, on April 19.[53] A Russian milblogger claimed that Ukrainian infantry maintains a roughly reduced company-sized presence in the Krynky area and also maintain positions near the Antonivsky roadway bridge (north of Oleshky).[54] Elements of the Russian 1197th Motorized Rifle Regiment are reportedly operating along the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast.[55]
Russian Air, Missile, and Drone Campaign (Russian Objective: Target Ukrainian military and civilian infrastructure in the rear and on the frontline)
Russian forces conducted a relatively large series of missile and drone strikes against Ukraine on the night of April 18 to 19 and limited strikes later in the day on April 19. Ukrainian Air Force Commander Lieutenant General Mykola Oleshchuk reported that Russian forces launched 14 Shahed-136/131 drones and 22 missiles, including 12 Kh-59/69 cruise missiles, two Iskander-K ballistic missiles, two Kh-101/Kh-555 cruise missiles, and six Kh-22 cruise missiles, at Ukraine on the night of April 18 to 19.[56] Oleshchuk reported that Ukrainian forces intercepted two Kh-101/Kh-555 cruise missiles, 14 Shahed drones, 11 Kh-59/69 cruise missiles, and two Kh-22 cruise missiles.[57] Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Military Administration Head Serhiy Lysak stated that Russian forces heavily targeted Dnipropetrovsk Oblast with at least 11 missiles and struck transportation and civilian infrastructure in Dnipro City, Pavlohrad, Kryvyi Rih, and Synelnykove.[58] Ukrainian railway operator Ukrzaliznytsia reported that Russian missile strikes in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast damaged Ukrzaliznytsia facilities and wounded railway workers.[59] Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces also struck port infrastructure in Odesa City with an unspecified type and number of missiles.[60] Ukrainian Eastern Air Command reported that Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian Kh-59 cruise missile near Dnipro City later on April 19.[61] Kharkiv Oblast Military Administration Head Oleh Synehubov stated that Russian forces struck Sorokove, Kharkiv Oblast with a S-300 air defense missile.[62]
Ukrainian officials noted that Ukrainian forces successfully intercepted Russian Kh-22 cruise missiles for the first time.[63] ISW has not previously observed reports of Ukrainian forces intercepting Russian Kh-22/32 cruise missiles during Russian missile strikes in Ukraine. Russian forces sporadically use a limited number of Kh-22/32 cruise missiles during strikes against Ukraine.
Russian Mobilization and Force Generation Efforts (Russian objective: Expand combat power without conducting general mobilization)
The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continues to expand the newly reformed Leningrad Military District (LMD) in preparation for an anticipated future large-scale conventional conflict with NATO. Sources within the Russian MoD told Russian news outlet Izvestia on April 19 that the Russian MoD formed a separate missile brigade in the Republic of Karelia equipped with Iskander-M ballistic missile systems, likely as part of an army corps (AC) that the Russian MoD is reportedly forming within the LMD.[64] Former Russian Baltic Fleet commander Admiral Vladimir Valuyev told Izvestia that the Russian MoD formed the brigade in response to Finland’s accession to NATO and to strengthen Russia’s force posturing along its western flank. Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, are increasingly framing the war in Ukraine as part of a wider existential conflict with the West in hopes of justifying a long-term Russian war effort.[65]
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu inspected Russian tank and thermobaric artillery system production facilities in Omsk Oblast on April 19 and instructed the facilities to increase their production output.[66] Shoigu also visited the Omsk Automotive and Armored Engineering Institute and met with Russian cadets training to repair and maintain armored vehicles and operate drones in frontline areas.
Russian officials continue to weigh the necessity of migrant labor to offset Russia’s labor shortages with ongoing ultranationalist demands for more restricted migration policies. Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty outlet Idel Realii reported on APR 19 that Tatarstan Government Head Alexey Pesoshin stated that Tatarstan will not be able to meet labor demand from Russian industrial facilities, including drone production facilities, without migrant labor.[67] Pesoshin conceded that ”the issue with migrants is multifaceted,” acknowledging ongoing demands from Russian ultranationalists for anti-migrant policies.[68] Putin recently advocated for migrant labor as the only viable solution for Russia’s ongoing and future labor shortage.[69]
Russian Technological Adaptations (Russian objective: Introduce technological innovations to optimize systems for use in Ukraine)
Russian forces continue quick and cheap adaptations to harden military equipment against Ukrainian first-person view (FPV) drone strikes along the frontline. Russian sources published imagery on April 18 of a KAMAZ truck, carrying a Russian Pantsir-S1 Air defense system, outfitted with forward-facing metal mesh screens for protection against FPV drone strikes.[70] A Russian milblogger expressed doubt that such quick adaptations will sufficiently protect Russian equipment against Ukrainian FPV drone strikes, however.[71]
Ukrainian Defense Industrial Efforts (Ukrainian objective: Develop its defense industrial base to become more self-sufficient in cooperation with US, European, and international partners)
ISW is not publishing coverage of Ukrainian defense industrial efforts today.
Activities in Russian-occupied areas (Russian objective: Consolidate administrative control of annexed areas; forcibly integrate Ukrainian citizens into Russian sociocultural, economic, military, and governance systems)
Russian officials continue to forcibly deport and Russify Ukrainian children as Ukrainian authorities work to return deported children to Ukrainian-controlled territory. Ukrainian Luhansk Oblast Military Administration Head Artem Lysohor stated on April 18 that Luhansk Oblast occupation authorities sent Ukrainian children to the Russian “Young Soldier’s Course” historical and educational forum in Kaluga Oblast.[72] The Russian Kherson Oblast Occupation Administration announced that occupation authorities will send children between the ages of 10 and 17 years old to a camp in Primorsky Krai, but did not specify when or if the children will return to occupied Kherson Oblast.[73] Kremlin-appointed Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova stated during a visit to an orphanage in occupied Luhansk Oblast on April 19 that occupation authorities have relocated more than 80 Ukrainian children to families throughout occupied Ukraine and claimed that she helped develop plans to place 83 additional Ukrainian children with families in occupied Luhansk Oblast.[74] The Ukrainian National Police stated on April 17 that Ukrainian and German authorities identified 161 Ukrainian children in Germany whom Russian authorities had deported to Russia and Belarus, but did not specify how the children arrived in Germany.[75] Ukrainian Kherson Oblast Military Administration Head Oleksandr Prokudin announced on April 18 that Ukrainian authorities recently returned two Ukrainian teenagers from Russian-occupied territory to Ukrainian-controlled territory, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Reintegration reported on April 19 that Ukrainian authorities returned another Ukrainian teenager to Ukraine from Russia after Russian authorities forcibly deported the teen.[76]
Russian Information Operations and Narratives
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov continued rhetoric aimed at weakening US and Western support for Ukraine and promoting Western self-deterrence. Lavrov claimed that Russia will not stop hostilities during any potential peace negotiations like it allegedly did during peace negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022 and that Russia is convinced that it must continue its war in Ukraine because Russia does not fear a situation in which the West wants to defeat Russia.[77] Lavrov also claimed that Ukraine is unwilling to negotiate and that any future peace negotiations involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are “meaningless.”[78] Lavrov is likely intensifying his rhetoric in conjunction with other senior Russian officials, including Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, to influence internal US debates ahead of the US House of Representatives vote on a supplemental military assistance package for Ukraine on April 20.[79]
Russian media and ultranationalists continued spreading information operations aimed at degrading domestic trust in the Ukrainian government through attempts to undermine mobilization efforts following the new Ukrainian mobilization law.[80]
Significant activity in Belarus (Russian efforts to increase its military presence in Belarus and further integrate Belarus into Russian-favorable frameworks and Wagner Group activity in Belarus)
Nothing significant to report.
Note: ISW does not receive any classified material from any source, uses only publicly available information, and draws extensively on Russian, Ukrainian, and Western reporting and social media as well as commercially available satellite imagery and other geospatial data as the basis for these reports. References to all sources used are provided in the endnotes of each update.
24. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, April 19, 2024
https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-april-19-2024
Key Takeaways:
- Iran: Israel conducted retaliatory airstrikes targeting an Artesh Air Force base in Esfahan City, Esfahan Province, Iran, in response to Iran’s April 13 drone and missile attack targeting Israel.
- Syria: Israel likely conducted airstrikes targeting Syrian Arab Army (SAA) air defenses and other positions in Daraa Province.
- Northern Gaza Strip: The IDF Air Force struck military infrastructure in the northern Gaza Strip.
- Southern Gaza Strip: US and Israeli officials held a high-level virtual meeting to discuss a possible Israeli military operation in Rafah.
- Political Negotiations: Unspecified US and Saudi officials told the Wall Street Journal that the United States is attempting to negotiate a deal in which Israel would recognize Palestinian statehood in exchange for diplomatic recognition from Saudi Arabia.
- West Bank: Israeli forces engaged fighters from several Palestinian militias, including Hamas and PIJ, during an operation in the Nour Shams Refugee Camp, Tulkarm.
- Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights: Lebanese Hezbollah conducted at least seven attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
- Iraq: Faylaq al Waad al Sadiq Secretary General Mohammad al Tamimi criticized the Shia Coordination Framework for supporting Iraqi President Mohammed Shia al Sudani’s visit to Washington, DC.
IRAN UPDATE, APRIL 19, 2024
Apr 19, 2024 - ISW Press
Download the PDF
Iran Update, April 19, 2024
Ashka Jhaveri, Kathryn Tyson, Johanna Moore, Amin Soltani, Annika Ganzeveld, Kelly Campa, and Brian Carter
Information Cutoff: 2:00 pm ET
The Iran Update provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities abroad that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests. It also covers events and trends that affect the stability and decision-making of the Iranian regime. The Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) provides these updates regularly based on regional events. Click here to see CTP and ISW’s interactive map of Israeli ground operations. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report.
CTP-ISW defines the “Axis of Resistance” as the unconventional alliance that Iran has cultivated in the Middle East since the Islamic Republic came to power in 1979. This transnational coalition is comprised of state, semi-state, and non-state actors that cooperate with one another to secure their collective interests. Tehran considers itself to be both part of the alliance and its leader. Iran furnishes these groups with varying levels of financial, military, and political support in exchange for some degree of influence or control over their actions. Some are traditional proxies that are highly responsive to Iranian direction, while others are partners over which Iran exerts more limited influence. Members of the Axis of Resistance are united by their grand strategic objectives, which include eroding and eventually expelling American influence from the Middle East, destroying the Israeli state, or both. Pursuing these objectives and supporting the Axis of Resistance to those ends have become cornerstones of Iranian regional strategy.
We do not report in detail on war crimes because these activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We utterly condemn violations of the laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions and crimes against humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.
Israel conducted retaliatory airstrikes targeting an Artesh Air Force base in Esfahan City, Esfahan Province, Iran, on April 18 in response to Iran’s April 13 drone and missile attack targeting Israel.[1] Western and Israeli media reported that Israeli aircraft over unspecified airspace outside Iran fired at least three missiles targeting an Artesh airbase in Esfahan. The Artesh is Iran’s conventional armed forces.[2] An analyst with commercial satellite firm Hawkeye360 posted satellite imagery showing an S-300PMU2 surface-to-air missile battery position in Esfahan, adding that the strike may have damaged an S-300PMU2 surface-to-air missile battery’s target engagement radar.[3] Russia provided the S-300 to Iran in 2016.[4] Iranian state media and local Iranian social media users suggested that Israel targeted the Eighth Shekari Artesh Air Force Base.[5] One senior US official told ABC News that Israel targeted an Artesh radar site that is part of the air defense system protecting the Natanz Nuclear Complex, which is Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility approximately 170 kilometers north of Esfahan.[6] The International Atomic Energy Organization, along with Western and Iranian media, reported that Israel did not damage any of Iran’s nuclear facilities.[7]
Iranian state media and local Iranian social media users separately reported air defense activity over Tabriz, East Azerbaijan Province, on April 18.[8] Iranian officials told The New York Times that Israel attempted to conduct a separate attack on unspecified targets in Tabriz.[9] IRGC-affiliated media claimed that Iranian air defense systems intercepted a “suspicious object,” which caused sounds of explosions over Tabriz. The IRGC-affiliated media outlet added that Iranian facilities in Tabriz “have not been exposed to any harm.”[10]
Iranian officials and media downplayed the severity of Israel’s April 18 airstrikes, suggesting that Iran will not respond to the strikes “forcefully” and “painfully.”[11] The regime has claimed it would respond to Israeli retaliation for the Iranian April 13 attack targeting Israel “forcefully” and “painfully” since April 16.[12] Iranian officials and media claimed that Iranian air defense systems shot down small drones over Esfahan, not missiles.[13] Senior Iranian military officials, including Artesh Commander Maj. Gen. Abdol Rahim Mousavi and Artesh Ground Forces Commander Brig. Gen. Kiomars Heydari, claimed that Iranian air defense systems intercepted “suspicious aerial objects,” which caused sounds of explosions over Esfahan.[14] Some Iranian media outlets claimed that Iran’s air defense systems shot down drones, despite Israeli reporting that Israel used long-range missiles to conduct the airstrikes.[15] Israel has previously conducted attacks inside Iran using small explosive-laden drones.[16] IRGC-affiliated media circulated videos highlighting the “secure and peaceful” atmosphere in Esfahan, including near nuclear facilities and the Eighth Shekari Artesh Air Base.[17] IRGC-affiliated media similarly claimed that Tabriz, East Azerbaijan, was “in complete calm” hours after reports of explosions near the city.[18]
The IDF Air Force likely conducted airstrikes targeting Syrian Arab Army (SAA) air defenses and other positions in Daraa Province on April 18. The Syrian Defense Ministry reported that Israel targeted air defense positions and caused “material losses” in southern Syria at 1955 ET on April 18, approximately 90 minutes before confirmation of an Israeli attack on Iran.[19] Local Syrian media reported that Israel targeted an SAA radar battalion near Qarfa, Daraa, and an SAA 112th Brigade position in Izraa City, Daraa.[20] The IDF has previously targeted SAA air defenses and positions in Daraa Province in retaliation for rockets fired into the Golan Heights.[21] Israeli media reported in 2020 that the SAA’s 1st Corps, which is responsible for areas of southern Syria near the Golan Heights, is closely affiliated with Lebanese Hezbollah.[22] The IDF has said that it will not allow Hezbollah to establish a presence in southern Syria and that the IDF will hold the SAA responsible for Hezbollah activity in Syria. [23]
Key Takeaways:
- Iran: Israel conducted retaliatory airstrikes targeting an Artesh Air Force base in Esfahan City, Esfahan Province, Iran, in response to Iran’s April 13 drone and missile attack targeting Israel.
- Syria: Israel likely conducted airstrikes targeting Syrian Arab Army (SAA) air defenses and other positions in Daraa Province.
- Northern Gaza Strip: The IDF Air Force struck military infrastructure in the northern Gaza Strip.
- Southern Gaza Strip: US and Israeli officials held a high-level virtual meeting to discuss a possible Israeli military operation in Rafah.
- Political Negotiations: Unspecified US and Saudi officials told the Wall Street Journal that the United States is attempting to negotiate a deal in which Israel would recognize Palestinian statehood in exchange for diplomatic recognition from Saudi Arabia.
- West Bank: Israeli forces engaged fighters from several Palestinian militias, including Hamas and PIJ, during an operation in the Nour Shams Refugee Camp, Tulkarm.
- Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights: Lebanese Hezbollah conducted at least seven attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
- Iraq: Faylaq al Waad al Sadiq Secretary General Mohammad al Tamimi criticized the Shia Coordination Framework for supporting Iraqi President Mohammed Shia al Sudani’s visit to Washington, DC.
Gaza Strip
Axis of Resistance objectives:
- Erode the will of the Israeli political establishment and public to sustain clearing operations in the Gaza Strip
- Reestablish Hamas as the governing authority in the Gaza Strip
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Air Force struck military infrastructure in the northern Gaza Strip on April 19. The 215th Artillery Brigade (162nd Division) and IDF Air Force struck rocket launchers and a weapons depot in an area in Beit Lahia from which Palestinian fighters had recently fired rockets at Ashkelon, southern Israel.[24] Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) launched two rocket salvos targeting Ashkelon on April 18.[25]
Palestinian militias conducted several indirect fire attacks targeting Israeli forces in the northern Gaza Strip on April 19. The al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, which is the self-proclaimed military wing of Fatah and aligned with Hamas in the war, mortared Israeli vehicles southeast of the Zaytoun neighborhood in southeastern Gaza City.[26] PIJ fired rockets targeting Israeli forces and Israeli positions east and southeast of Gaza City.[27] Israeli forces are operating in southeastern Gaza City to conduct raids against Palestinian fighters and secure the Netzarim corridor, where Israeli forces have constructed a highway to support military operations in the northern Gaza Strip.[28]
The Nahal Brigade (162nd Division) killed several Palestinian fighters in an unspecified area in the central Gaza Strip on April 19.[29] The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a secular leftist Palestinian group fighting alongside Hamas in the war, fired rockets targeting Israeli forces in the east of the central Gaza Strip on April 18.[30]
The IDF Air Force struck approximately 25 military targets to support IDF ground forces operating in the Gaza Strip on April 19.[31] The targets included military buildings, observation posts, and rocket launchers.
Unspecified US and Saudi officials told the Wall Street Journal on April 18 that the United States is attempting to negotiate a deal in which Israel would recognize Palestinian statehood in exchange for diplomatic recognition of Israel from Saudi Arabia.[32] US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on January 10 that normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel is still possible.[33] Saudi Arabia told the United States in February 2024 that it will not proceed with normalization with Israel “unless an independent Palestinian state is recognized.”[34] The Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi officials have privately suggested that they would normalize ties with Israel if Israel gave verbal assurances that it would engage in talks on Palestinian statehood.
The United States is offering Saudi Arabia a “more formal” defense relationship with the United States, US assistance to help Saudi Arabia acquire civil nuclear power, and Palestinian statehood as part of the deal. Unidentified US officials claimed that this part of the negotiation is in its final stages. US officials argued that Iran’s attack on Israel on April 13 should be evidence to Israel that integration with Saudi Arabia can improve its defense against Iran. The Wall Street Journal noted that the deal may aid Israel in a potential exit strategy from the Gaza Strip. Several Arab countries have said that if Israel publicly makes progress in establishing a Palestinian state, they will participate in a post-war Gaza Strip.
US and Israeli officials held a high-level virtual meeting on April 18 to discuss a possible Israeli military operation in Rafah.[35] This is the second such meeting to discuss Rafah since April 1.[36] US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi. US and Israeli officials agreed on the ”shared objective to see Hamas defeated in Rafah.”[37] US officials expressed concerns over the potential operation in Rafah, and the Israeli officials agreed to take these concerns into account and hold future discussions.[38] Unspecified US officials familiar with a similar meeting on April 1 said that Israel presented a plan to move 1.4 million civilians out of Rafah but that the Israeli plan excluded concepts for access to food, water, and other civil services.[39] US and Israeli officials also discussed Iran’s attack on Israel and new US sanctions targeting Iran during the April 18 meeting.[40]
PIJ launched a second salvo of rockets from the Gaza Strip targeting Ashkelon in southern Israel shortly after the first on April 18.[41] CTP-ISW reported the first salvo targeting Ashkelon in the April 18 update.[42]
Recorded reports of attacks; CTP-ISW cannot independently verify impact.
West Bank
Axis of Resistance objectives:
- Establish the West Bank as a viable front against Israel
Israeli forces engaged fighters from several Palestinian militias, including Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), during an operation in the Nour Shams Refugee Camp, Tulkarm.[43] Hamas reported that fighters from its battalion in Jenin were involved in clashes in Tulkarm.[44] The IDF reported that three Israeli soldiers sustained injuries during clashes with Palestinian fighters who used small arms and improvised explosive devices (IED).[45] Palestinian sources reported that Israeli forces killed at least five Palestinians, including a senior commander in PIJ’s Tulkarm Battalion.[46]
Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least four locations in the West Bank since CTP-ISW's last data cut off on April 18, including multiple engagements in Nour Shams refugee camp.[47] The al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades fired small arms targeting Israeli forces near an Israeli settlement north of Hebron.[48]
The United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated two entities on April 19 for fundraising on behalf of two violent Israeli extremists in the West Bank. [49]The groups, Mount Hebron Fund and Shlom Asiraich, established crowdfunding campaigns to raise thousands of dollars for two men whom the United States sanctioned in February 2024. The United States sanctioned the two men in February under an executive order that targeted those perpetrating violence in the West Bank.[50] The European Union separately imposed sanctions on four individuals and two entities for their connection to Israeli settler violence.[51]
The IDF responded to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on April 18 about the rise in Israeli settler violence in the West Bank.[52] The IDF told CNN that Israeli soldiers who fail to protect Palestinians from settler violence or take part in such attacks face disciplinary action.[53] The IDF conceded that its forces had witnessed some Israelis attacking Palestinians. HRW reported that the Israeli military has not protected Palestinians from settler violence and on some occasions participated in the attacks.[54]
This map is not an exhaustive depiction of clashes and demonstrations in the West Bank.
Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights
Axis of Resistance objectives:
- Deter Israel from conducting a ground operation into Lebanon
- Prepare for an expanded and protracted conflict with Israel in the near term
- Expel the United States from Syria
Lebanese Hezbollah has conducted at least seven attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on April 18.[55] Hezbollah targeted Israeli surveillance equipment in three attacks using unspecified weapons.
The IDF 869th Combat Intelligence Battalion (91st Division) identified Hezbollah fighters in Aita al Shaab, southern Lebanon, and directed an airstrike targeting them.[56] Hezbollah announced that one of its fighters died but did not provide further details.[57]
Recorded reports of attacks; CTP-ISW cannot independently verify impact.
Iran and Axis of Resistance
Faylaq al Waad al Sadiq Secretary General Mohammad al Tamimi criticized the Shia Coordination Framework on April 19 for supporting Iraqi President Mohammed Shia al Sudani’s visit to Washington, DC.[58] Faylaq al Waad al Sadiq reportedly has ties to Iranian-backed Iraqi militias Asaib Ahl al Haq and Harakat Hezbollah al Nujaba.[59] Tamimi previously threatened on March 27 to resume attacks targeting US forces if Sudani did not establish a timeline for US troops to withdraw from Iraq during his visit to Washington, DC.[60] Tamimi accused unspecified leaders of the Shia Coordination Framework of becoming too concerned with politics and abandoning their efforts to remove US forces from Iraq. Tamimi also questioned their dedication to remove US forces from Iraq. Tamimi argued that Iraq cannot have a relationship with the United States while US forces remaining Iraq.[61]
An online shipping tracker confirmed that the IRGC intelligence gathering ship, the Behshad, returned to Bandar Abbas port, Hormozgan province, Iran, on April 18.[62] Bloomberg reported on April 18 that the Behshad left the Red Sea on April 4 to return to Iran.[63] The Behshad provides the Houthi movement with real-time intelligence, enabling them to target ships that have turned off transponders.[64] Western and Israeli media speculated that Israel would target the Behshad in retaliation for Iran’s April 13 drone and missile attack targeting Israel.[65]
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation
Editor, Small Wars Journal
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
| 
