|
Quotes of the Day:
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly." – Albert Einstein
"Water appears weak and yielding.
Yet it conquers the strongest and hardest of rocks, wearing through mountains.
This may feel like common knowledge.
Yet common men assume the opposite is true.
Soft subdued strong.
Gentle humbles powerful.
Still the reverse is commonly practiced in the world.
Men stand fast in their original convictions.
While the Tao, unnoticed, sidesteps and continues on."
Interpretive Poem based on the Tai Te Ching by Lao Tau, Chapter 78.
–Shadoe McKee
"Competition is the law of the jungle, but cooperation is the law of civilization."
– Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)
1. Conflict between China, Philippines could involve U.S. and lead to a clash of superpowers
2. Venezuela says US Navy SEAL among foreigners arrested over alleged CIA ‘operation’ to assassinate Maduro
3. U.S. determined to see Venezuela return to its "democratic course"
4. Nearly $6 billion in funding for Ukraine will expire if Congress doesn't act by the end of the month
5. US clears F-35 sale to Romania, bolstering NATO’s eastern flank
6. The Case Against the China Consensus
7. The Crumbling Nuclear Order
8. ‘I Met Trump’s Would-Be Assassin.’ (The Free Press)
9. New York Times Reporter Revisits Earlier Interview With Suspect at Trump Golf Course
10. Are U.S. Airlines ‘Playing Into Iran’s Game’?
11. Axis Of Upheaval: New Era Of Confrontation
12. Over 30 Squadrons of American Reaper Drones Train For Major Maritime Special Operations Against China
13. The West has a plan to keep China, Russia out of subsea data pipes
14. Canada eyes AUKUS membership over China concerns
15. Russia-China joint military drills end in Sea of Japan
16. Consequences for Mongolia? Exclusive Interview With ICC Advisor
17. War Books: Soldiers’ Stories
18. Billionaire investor warns of threat to democracy
19. How the Insurrection Act (Properly Understood) Limits Domestic Deployments of the U.S. Military
20. U.S. attorney explains Jan. 6 Capitol riot prosecutions
21. Things Worth Remembering: The Imperfection of America
22. Orwell’s Word to the Wise
23. Fiction in Tandem: Why ‘1984’ and ‘Brave New World’ Should Always Be Read Together
24. EXCLUSIVE: Ukraine’s HUR Special Forces Target Russian Drone Base in Syria
1. Conflict between China, Philippines could involve U.S. and lead to a clash of superpowers
A good report on 60 MInutes Video at the link and the transcript is below.:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-philippines-conflict-could-involve-us-60-minutes-transcript/
I am reminded of this quote from our friend the Philippine Ambassador to the US:
“The West Philippine Sea, not Taiwan, is the real flashpoint for an armed conflict,”
– Ambassador Jose Manuel Romualdez February 28, 2024
Conflict between China, Philippines could involve U.S. and lead to a clash of superpowers
CBS News · by Cecilia Vega
If there's going to be a military conflict between the United States and China, the thinking in Washington goes, it will most likely happen if China tries to invade Taiwan. But lately tensions have escalated precariously in another part of the South China Sea-the waters off the western coast of the Philippines where an international tribunal ruled the Philippines has exclusive economic rights. But China claims almost all of the South China Sea, one of the world's most vital waterways through which more than $3 trillion in goods flow each year. To assert its claims, China has been using tactics just short of war -- leading to violent confrontations. The United States has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, which could mean American intervention. It's been called "the most dangerous conflict no one is talking about." And last month we saw for ourselves just how dangerous it can be…
When we boarded the Philippine Coast Guard ship Cape Engaño last month, it was supposed to be for a routine mission resupplying ships and stations in the South China Sea.
But in the middle of our first night …
Sirens raged… crew members rushed between decks.
Cecilia Vega: It's 4 in the morning. We've all been sound asleep. This alarm just went off on the ship. We were told to wake up and put our life jackets on because we've just been rammed by a Chinese boat.
There was confusion… fear. Our team was told to stay inside the cabin for safety.
It was unclear if we would take on water…. or if the Chinese would try to force their way on board…
60 Minutes
Philippine crew members prepared for that possibility and stood by the hatch holding clubs in case they had to fend off the Chinese.
This cellphone video taken by the Filipinos shows the moment just after impact-- the Chinese coast guard ship- 269 feet long and nearly twice the size of the Cape Engaño-- jammed into the Philippine's starboard quarter- the rear right side of the ship.
When the Chinese pulled away…the Filipinos found a three-and-a-half-foot hole…an officer told us we were lucky the damage was above the water line…
Cecilia Vega: There are… you can't see here in the dark-- about four or five different Chinese boats surrounding us, at the moment. And the crew tells me they can see on the radar that more are coming right now
This happened about 60 nautical miles off the coast of the Philippines --- and about 660 nautical miles from China… on the way to a place called Sabina Shoal…
Manila and Beijing have stationed Coast Guard vessels around the shoal in recent months, with the Philippines fearing China will take control…
In 2016, an international tribunal at the Hague ruled the Philippines has exclusive economic rights in a 200-mile zone that includes Sabina Shoal and the area where the Cape Engaño was rammed.
China does not recognize the ruling and says the South China Sea has been its territory since ancient times.
Cecilia Vega: We're just getting our first light. And now, we have a much better sense of just how surrounded we are by Chinese vessels. You can see these two right here actually say, "China Coast Guard," We're at a complete standoff. We've been here for, going on, two hours now, not moving. It's unclear whether we can even turn around and go back, if we wanted to. We're just completely surrounded by Chinese ships.
Fourteen in all… including a militia of large fishing vessels used to help occupy territory and block ships like the one we were on…
The Filipinos tried to negotiate a way out, but ultimately were forced to abandon the first stop of their mission.
Cecilia Vega: He said we're not going to Sabina
In their damaged boat… they had to take a long detour to their next supply drop, as Chinese ships followed closely.
By this time, the Chinese had already publicized their version of the incident -- accusing the Filipinos of instigating the conflict and highlighting our team's faces-- accusing us of being part of a propaganda campaign
Chinese video: The Philippines has turned the South China Sea into its theater …deliberately ramming a Chinese Coast Guard ship, with Western journalists right there to capture the drama…
Cecilia Vega: they're saying that this is your fault, this collision.
Captain Labay: If you do the ramming, the other ship would ha-- would have the damage, not your ship.
Captain Daniel Labay, the top-ranking officer on the Cape Engaño, took us below deck to survey the damage..
Cecilia Vega and Captain Daniel Labay 60 Minutes
He told us it would not stop them from continuing on.
Captain Labay: This is our place. This is our exclusive economic zone. It's-- this is the Philippines.
Over the past two years, the Chinese have turned the South China Sea into a demolition derby-- repeatedly ramming Philippine ships and blasting them with water cannons…
But what we saw on the Cape Engaño represented a significant escalation-- bringing the battle lines closer than ever to the Philippine shore.
Within hours of the collision the Biden administration condemned China for what it called "dangerous and destabilizing conduct."
Cecilia Vega: This has become an international incident what happened on your ship this morning.
Captain Labay: I've been assigned here for two years, and this is just what we deal with every day.
Cecilia Vega: Is it getting worse now?
Captain Labay: Yes, it's-- it's getting worse.
Cecilia Vega: What's behind this uptick in tension? What changed?
Gilbert Teodoro: I think, well, what changed is the determination of the Philippines to say, "No."
Cecilia Vega: You're standing up to China?
Gilbert Teodoro: Oh yes. Yes, and they don't like it.
Gilberto Teodoro is the Philippine secretary of national defense.
Gilbert Teodoro: The proverbial schoolyard bully is the best example of what China is, you know. It-- it just muscles you over.
Gilbert Teodoro 60 Minutes
For example, he says: the aptly named Mischief Reef in the Philippines' economic zone once looked like this…. it now looks like this. In the 1990s, the Chinese took it over and started turning the reef into a military base.
As the Cape Engaño passed near Mischief Reef…a Chinese Navy destroyer appeared…
E.J. Cruise: China Navy warship, 105….this is MRV 4411…
The Filipinos repeatedly asked for safe passage…
E.J. Cruise: Please keep clear of our passage and maintain safe distance. Over.
Each time there was no response… in a game of cat and mouse … the destroyer edged forward.
The Filipinos -- forced to come to a stop and adjust course to avoid another collision.
Ray Powell: China has decided that at this point in their history, they are large enough so that they can buck the law.
In Manila, we met retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Ray Powell who runs the nonprofit Sealight…
… which tracks China's actions in the South China Sea.
Cecilia Vega: How do they get away with this?
Ray Powell: There's a law and there's a judge, but there's no-- there's no enforcer. There's no prosecutor. There's nobody to put 'em in jail
Cecilia Vega: There's no sheriff out, unless, I suppose, the U.S. decides to intervene, which then, when then becomes the world policeman?
Ray Powell: You know, that's the problem
The U.S. is bound by treaty to defend the Philippines if it comes under armed attack…
Ray Powell 60 Minutes
Cecilia Vega: I wanna understand a scenario in which that red line could be crossed.
Ray Powell: You were just involved in a situation where you were hit by a larger ship. Imagine if that ship had sunk your ship and several people had died. What would the Philippines then feel compelled to do? They probably wouldn't go instantly to war. But they might instantly get onto a war footing. They might go to the United States and say, "This looks a lot like an armed attack to us. We were hit by a ship and people died."
Cecilia Vega: And in a scenario like that, would the United States be obligated to intervene?
Ray Powell: Look, every treaty-- in-- in the end depends on the political will of the parties. What I will say is if the United States fails or appears to fail to meet its treaty obligations, the entire U.S. treaty and alli-- alliance and treaty structure is built on credibility.
Cecilia Vega: Your word means nothing?
Ray Powell: If it means nothing to the Philippines, what does it mean to Japan? What does it mean to Australia? What does it mean to NATO?
The U.S. has not had a permanent military presence in the Philippines since 1992. Though it does conduct regular joint exercises, and this year committed $500 million in military aid to Manila and another 128 million to upgrade bases.
We met General Romeo Brawner, the military chief of staff, at one of those bases, after he landed in his fighter jet following an aerial reconnaissance flight over the South China Sea.
Cecilia Vega: How much time do you spend focused on China?
General Romeo Brawner: Almost the whole day
Last year General Brawner visited the Philippines' equivalent of the Alamo, a grounded World War II battleship called the Sierra Madre, manned by soldiers and used to hold down Manila's claim to a disputed area in the South China Sea.
It was the scene of the most violent incident to date.
General Romeo Brawner: 60 Minutes
In June, when the Philippine Navy tried to resupply those troops, the Chinese blocked the delivery… it was near hand to hand combat.
General Romeo Brawner: What was surprising was that they had bladed weapons with them. They had spears with them.
Cecilia Vega: You had never seen that before.
General Romeo Brawner: We have not seen that before. And they began-- attacking our boats. They started puncturing our boats with their spears
A Filipino Navy SEAL lost his right thumb after the Chinese rammed his boat.
General Romeo Brawner: They stole our equipment. They destroyed our equipment. They hurt our personnel. And these are the doings of pirates. I warned our personnel – if this happens again, you have the right to defend yourselves.
Cecilia Vega: If the Chinese were to fire upon your men and your men fire back, sir, that sounds like the makings of the-- the beginning of a war.
General Romeo Brawner: Yes. Yes, indeed, indeed
Defense Secretary Teodoro told us there are ongoing conversations between Washington and Manila about which scenarios would trigger U.S. involvement
Cecilia Vega: Do you worry that perhaps some unpredictable incident at sea could cause tensions to escalate? And then, you know, suddenly the Philippines, not Taiwan, becomes the flash-point in the South China Sea--
Gilbert Teodoro: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, definitely.
Cecilia Vega: If China were to take the Sierra Madre, would that merit America's intervention?
Gilbert Teodoro: If China were to take the Sierra Madre, that is a clear act of war on a Philippine vessel.
Cecilia Vega: And you would expect American intervention--
Gilbert Teodoro: And we will react. And naturally, we would expect it.
Cecilia Vega: You're talking about a rusty, old warship. How realistic is it to expect the United States to intervene over the fate of a warship like that?
Gilbert Teodoro: There are people in there, that is an outpost of Philippine sovereignty. So we're not talking about a rusty, old vessel solely. We're talking about a piece of Philippine territory in there.
President Biden has invited Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to the White House twice in the past 16 months… and assured him of America's support…
President Biden: "I wanna be very clear. The United States defense commitment to the Philippines is ironclad."
Earlier this year Washington sent the Philippines a powerful weapon during joint exercises – a mid-range missile system capable of reaching mainland China.
Cecilia Vega: That clearly angered China in a big way
Gilbert Teodoro: Well, that's none of their business. This is for Philippine defense.
Cecilia Vega: It's none of China's business that you have a missile that could reach their shores?
Gilbert Teodoro: What happens within our territory, it is for our defense. We follow international law. What's the fuss?
Cecilia Vega: Do you plan to keep mid-range missiles capable of reaching mainland China at some of your bases?
Gilbert Teodoro: I can neither confirm nor deny if there is such a plan.
Cecilia Vega: You say, "What's the fuss?" China says that you've brought the risk of war into the region by doing this.
Gilbert Teodoro: That's what they always say. Everything the world does that they don't like is the fault of the world.
Cecilia Vega: But how do you think this ends though? You don't expect China to pack up and leave, do you?
Gilbert Teodoro: I really don't know the end state. All I know is that we cannot let them get away with what they're doing.
Produced by Andy Court and Jacqueline Williams. Associate producer, Annabelle Hanflig. Broadcast associates, Katie Jahns. Edited by Sean Kelly.
Cecilia Vega is an Emmy Award-winning journalist and "60 Minutes" correspondent who joined the CBS newsmagazine in 2023.
Twitter
CBS News · by Cecilia Vega
2. Venezuela says US Navy SEAL among foreigners arrested over alleged CIA ‘operation’ to assassinate Maduro
Very curious. What is an (apparently) active duty US Navy SEAL doing in Venezuela?
Excerpts:
“The CIA is at the forefront of this operation,” Cabello said in the news conference, claiming that Spain’s National Intelligence Center was also involved. “That does not surprise us at all,” he said.
He alleged that the operation had “very clear objectives of assassinating President Nicolás Maduro” and other high-ranking Venezuelan politicians including himself and the vice president.
The State Department denied the claims. A spokesperson confirmed on Saturday a member of the US military had been arrested in Venezuela, and that the department was “aware of unconfirmed reports of two additional US citizens detained” in the country.
“Any claims of US involvement in a plot to overthrow Maduro are categorically false,” the spokesperson added. “The United States continues to support a democratic solution to the political crisis in Venezuela.”
The department is seeking additional information, the spokesperson said.
Venezuela says US Navy SEAL among foreigners arrested over alleged CIA ‘operation’ to assassinate Maduro | CNN
CNN · by Mauricio Torres · September 14, 2024
The Venezuelan flag flies over the National Assembly building in Caracas, Venezuela.
Carlos Becerra/Bloomberg/Getty Images
CNN —
Venezuela says it has arrested six foreigners, including a US Navy SEAL, for an alleged plot to “destabilize” the country that has been in crisis since disputed elections earlier this year.
Interior minister Diosdado Cabello claimed that the alleged plot was led by the CIA, and aimed at assassinating the country’s leader Nicolás Maduro. The US State Department rejected the claim as “categorically false.”
The accusation comes as Venezuela’s opposition, multiple Latin American leaders and the United States refuse to recognize Maduro’s disputed election win, which has been followed by deadly protests during which thousands were arrested.
In a news conference on Saturday, Cabello identified the purported Navy SEAL as William Joseph Castañeda Gómez, and claimed he was the leader of the operation. The minister also named two other detained Americans: David Estrella and Aaron Barrett Logan.
The minister said that in addition to the Americans, two Spanish citizens – José María Basoa Valdovinos and Andrés Martínez Adasme – and one Czech citizen, Jan Darmovzal, were arrested. Venezuelan authorities have also seized 400 US rifles linked to the alleged plot, he said.
Venezuelan authorities showed images of confiscated rifles they said were part of an alleged plot to "destabilize" the country in a news conference on September 14.
Venezuelan Government TV/Reuters
“The CIA is at the forefront of this operation,” Cabello said in the news conference, claiming that Spain’s National Intelligence Center was also involved. “That does not surprise us at all,” he said.
He alleged that the operation had “very clear objectives of assassinating President Nicolás Maduro” and other high-ranking Venezuelan politicians including himself and the vice president.
The State Department denied the claims. A spokesperson confirmed on Saturday a member of the US military had been arrested in Venezuela, and that the department was “aware of unconfirmed reports of two additional US citizens detained” in the country.
“Any claims of US involvement in a plot to overthrow Maduro are categorically false,” the spokesperson added. “The United States continues to support a democratic solution to the political crisis in Venezuela.”
The department is seeking additional information, the spokesperson said.
A Spanish foreign ministry source told Reuters it was asking Venezuela for more information.
“The Spanish embassy has sent a verbal note to the Venezuelan government asking for access to the detained citizens in order to verify their identities and their nationality and in order to know what they are accused of exactly,” the source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Political crisis
Venezuela is still grappling with the fallout from its presidential election in July, which saw Maduro claim a third term despite global skepticism about the result and outcry from the country’s opposition movement.
The coalition backing opposition leader Edmundo Gonzalez insists the vote was stolen, publishing online vote tally sheets which experts say indicate Maduro actually lost the presidency by a significant margin.
The US has acknowledged Gonzalez as the candidate who received the most votes in that election, but has not formally recognized him as president-elect of Venezuela.
Last week, Gonzalez flew to Spain, fleeing Venezuela after an arrest warrant was issued accusing him of terrorism, conspiracy and other crimes.
On Thursday, the US imposed sanctions on Venezuelan officials aligned with Maduro for allegedly obstructing the election.
The US also announced that a Venezuelan plane used by Maduro for international travel was seized in the Dominican Republic; a second plane linked to Maduro is under 24-hour surveillance by authorities in the Dominican Republic, a source with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
Meanwhile inside the country, Maduro’s government has cracked down on dissent – the harshest crackdown in years, according to Human Rights Watch. Protests have been fiercely repressed, some 2,400 people have been arrested, and many others are now fleeing the country.
CNN · by Mauricio Torres · September 14, 2024
3. U.S. determined to see Venezuela return to its "democratic course"
I am sure some will try to connect the dots from these statements to our alleged US Navy SEAL arrested in Venezuela.
U.S. determined to see Venezuela return to its "democratic course"
In a Dominican Republican based press conference, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stressed that “putting Venezuela on a democratic trajectory is of utmost importance, first of all, for the Venezuelan people.”
By ADN America Staff
September 6, 2024 6:11pm
Updated: September 9, 2024 9:09am
adnamerica.com · by ADN America Staff
The United States is determined to see Venezuela “return to a democratic course that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people,” according to what U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken who spoke this Friday about the South American country during a press conference in the Dominican Republic’s capital of Santo Domingo.
In a press conference with Dominican President Luis Abinader, Blinken highlighted that “putting Venezuela on a democratic trajectory is of utmost importance, first of all for the Venezuelan people,” but also for the entire Western Hemisphere and for other countries that have expressed its concern about the situation in the South American country, as reported by the EFE Spanish language news agency.
“We are very concerned about the trajectory in Venezuela after the elections, where the will of the people could not have been clearer. Unfortunately that will and their votes have not been reflected in what has happened since then,” said Blinken, referring to the July 28 Venezuelan presidential elections.
En su primera visita a la República Dominicana, el Secretario de Estado, Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken), y el presidente Luis Abinader (@luisabinader) se reunieron para discutir sobre el refuerzo en la seguridad regional y la promoción de valores democráticos. Este encuentro es un… pic.twitter.com/tR51XSU5KJ
— EmbajadaUSAenRD (@EmbajadaUSAenRD) September 6, 2024
The Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) declared as the winner, a result which has been fiercely challenged by the opposition and numerous countries.
Abinader also shared his concerns, saying that the Dominican Republic will continue to work with the international community and other countries to “defend democracy and the desire of the Venezuelan people,” and that his government will continue to support resolutions passed in support of the opposition from the Organization of American States (OAS).
Abinader, who also expressed his concern about the recent Venezuelan arrest warrant against opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia, advocated for “a hemispheric response,” which he suggested should be coordinated with the United Nations.
The Dominican Republic recently allowed the U.S. to seize an official Maduro jet that was on the Caribbean island since last May for maintenance issues, a move which Washington claimed was within the framework of the sanctions applied to Caracas.
“If we find that there have been violations we will act, that is what we did and that is what we will continue to do (...) We have enforced our sanctions and we will continue to do so when appropriate,” Blinken said in a statement addressing the issue.
On his first visit to the Dominican Republic, Blinken and Abinader met to discuss strengthening regional security and promoting democratic values.
“This meeting is a testimony of the solid alliance between our nations and the mutual commitment to a safer and more democratic future,” the Dominican based U.S. embassy wrote on its X account.
adnamerica.com · by ADN America Staff
4. Nearly $6 billion in funding for Ukraine will expire if Congress doesn't act by the end of the month
Congress may shut down the US government. Why should we have any hope that it will approve this funding?
Nearly $6 billion in funding for Ukraine will expire if Congress doesn't act by the end of the month
AP · September 13, 2024
Nearly $6 billion in funding for Ukraine will expire if Congress doesn’t act by the end of the month
1 of 2 |FILE - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown Jr., speaks during a press briefing with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, left, April 26, 2024 at the Pentagon in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly $6 billion in U.S. funding for aid to Ukraine will expire at the end of the month unless Congress acts to extend the Pentagon’s authority to send weapons from its stockpile to Kyiv, according to U.S. officials.
U.S. officials said the Biden administration has asked Congress to include the funding authority in any continuing resolution lawmakers may manage to pass before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 in order to fund the federal government and prevent a shutdown. Officials said they hope to have the authority extended for another year.
They also said the Defense Department is looking into other options if that effort fails.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the funding talks, did not provide details on the options. But they said about $5.8 billion in presidential drawdown authority (PDA) will expire. Another $100 million in PDA does not expire at the end of the month, the officials said. The PDA allows the Pentagon to take weapons off the shelves and send them quickly to Ukraine.
They said there is a little more than $4 billion available in longer-term funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative that will not expire at the end of the month. That money, which expires Sept. 30, 2025, is used to pay for weapons contracts that would not be delivered for a year or more.
Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that as the Defense Department comptroller provides options to senior defense and military service leaders, they will look at ways they can tap the PDA and USAI funding.
He said it could be important to Ukraine as it prepares for the winter fight.
“One of the areas that we could do work with them on ... is air defense capabilities and the ability to defend their critical infrastructure,” Brown told reporters traveling with him to meetings in Europe. “It’s very important to Ukraine on how they defend their national infrastructure, but also set their defenses for the winter so they can slow down any type of Russian advance during the winter months.”
Earlier Thursday at the Pentagon, Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, the press secretary, noted that the PDA gives the Pentagon the ability to spend money from its budget to send military aid to Ukraine. Funding in the $61 billion supplemental bill for Ukraine passed in April can reimburse the department for the weapons it sends.
“Right now, we’re continuing to work with Congress to see about getting those authorities extended to enable us to continue to do drawdown packages,” said Ryder. “In the meantime, you’re going to continue to see drawdown packages. But we’ll have much more to provide on that in the near future.”
The U.S. has routinely announced new drawdown packages — often two to three a month.
Failure by lawmakers to act on the PDA funding could once again deliver a serious setback in Ukraine’s battle against Russia, just five months after a bitterly divided Congress finally overcame a long and devastating gridlock and approved new Ukraine funding.
Delays in passing that $61 billion for Ukraine earlier this year triggered dire battlefield conditions as Ukrainian forces ran low on munitions and Russian forces were able to make gains. Officials have blamed the monthslong deadlocked Congress for Russia’s ability to take more territory.
Since funding began again, U.S. weapons have flowed into Ukraine, bolstering the forces and aiding Kyiv’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. Ukraine’s forces stormed across the border five weeks ago and put Russian territory under foreign occupation for the first time since World War II.
AP · September 13, 2024
5. US clears F-35 sale to Romania, bolstering NATO’s eastern flank
We have come a long way from the days of Ceausescu.
US clears F-35 sale to Romania, bolstering NATO’s eastern flank
Defense News · by Stephen Losey · September 13, 2024
The U.S. State Department on Friday announced it has approved the sale of 32 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters to Romania in a deal worth roughly $7.2 billion.
Romania’s deal for the Lockheed Martin-made F-35s will also include F135 engines made by Pratt & Whitney for each jet and a spare engine.
The sale would provide Romania, a NATO member, its first two squadrons of F-35s, and the country wants to later buy 16 more jets to make up a third squadron. If the deal is finalized, it could make Romania the third Eastern European country to fly the F-35, in addition to Poland and the Czech Republic.
Romania said in September 2023 that it expected to receive its first F-35s in 2030. Romania’s planned purchases could make it NATO’s largest F-35 operator on the eastern flank at a time when Russian aggression in Ukraine has worried allies.
The proposed sale would “improve Romania’s capability to meet current and future threats by further equipping it to conduct self-defense and regional security missions while enhancing interoperability with the United States and other NATO members,” the State Department said. Improving this NATO ally’s security would support the U.S.’s foreign policy and national security goals, it said.
The purchase would also provide logistics and maintenance support, navigation, communications and cryptographic equipment, ammunition and weapons, training for pilots and other personnel, and simulators. Lockheed primarily makes F-35s at its Fort Worth, Texas, facility.
The State Department also cleared a $4.1 billion deal for Japan to buy up to nine KC-46A Pegasus refueling tankers from Boeing.
About Stephen Losey
Stephen Losey is the air warfare reporter for Defense News. He previously covered leadership and personnel issues at Air Force Times, and the Pentagon, special operations and air warfare at Military.com. He has traveled to the Middle East to cover U.S. Air Force operations.
6. The Case Against the China Consensus
What responsibility does China have for stepping back from confrontation? When will Chna renounce (in practice more than words) Unrestricted Warfare, the Three Warfares, and Debt Trap and Wolf Diplomacy?
Excepts:
The prospect of a political transition and the absence of solidified public attitudes in the United States create a window for policymakers to refine their assumptions about what is driving China’s activities, how great a threat those activities pose to U.S. interests, and what responses are warranted. If they lean into fear and expedience, they will fall victim to the kinds of binary thinking that equate diplomacy with appeasement and the mere presence of Chinese-born individuals in the United States (or Americans in China) with duplicity. That mentality is dangerous and self-defeating. Diplomacy is not appeasement; it is an indispensable tool for communicating the threats and assurances that are necessary for effective deterrence. And countering Beijing’s efforts to extend its extraterritorial control is crucial to defending American liberties. But people born in China or of Chinese descent should not be categorically treated as a fifth column in the United States; the diaspora has been a hotbed for resistance, which is precisely why the CCP is so bent on monitoring and intimidating it. And if the United States were to go so far as to enact bans or visa restrictions on the basis of national origin, it would compromise the very principles of nondiscrimination and equality before the law that embody the American ideal.
The United States faces real challenges in addressing China’s espionage, cyberattacks, and other illicit and nonmarket practices. But policies to combat these threats must not undermine the strengths they are meant to protect. Right now, much of the U.S. public and policy conversation is consumed by how to counter China and defend American workers, infrastructure, technology, and intellectual property against foreign threats. This focus downplays the domestic harms that measures ostensibly aimed at strengthening U.S. national security can have on the health and vibrancy of the United States’ democracy, society, and innovation ecosystem. Getting China right is critical to the United States’ success, both under the next president and for years beyond.
The Case Against the China Consensus
Why the Next American President Must Step Back From Confrontation
September 16, 2024
Foreign Affairs · by Jessica Chen Weiss · September 16, 2024
Washington faces growing criticism for pursuing open-ended competition with China without defining what success would look like. Even as China’s coercive capabilities and threatening behavior have rightly focused U.S. attention on the risks to American interests, the absence of clear metrics for success leaves the door open for partisan aspersions of the Biden administration’s approach. The administration’s defenders, meanwhile, rebuff these attacks by pointing out that its policies align with a broad consensus about the challenge China poses and the steps necessary to counter it.
To be sure, both Democratic and Republican politicians have engaged in the typical campaign ploy of sounding tough on China. During their recent debate, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris accused former President Donald Trump of selling out American interests and praising Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and Trump erroneously claimed that “China was paying us hundreds of billions of dollars” under his administration’s tariffs (which the Biden administration has expanded). Meanwhile, the drumbeat of hyperbolic rhetoric and congressional hearings on the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has blurred the line between legitimate commercial, scientific, and educational pursuits involving Chinese entities and those that pose unacceptable security risks or invite other vulnerabilities. Fearing that what might have been welcome yesterday could be deemed disloyal today, companies, researchers, and students have pulled back from many of the activities that have underpinned U.S. economic and scientific leadership.
Yet beneath this charged atmosphere, ample space for debate and discernment remains. The apparent hardening of a U.S. consensus on China is shallower and wobblier than it appears. In this fluid environment, there is an opportunity for the next presidential administration to develop a more affirmative, less reactive approach, one that dials down the heat and focuses on reducing the risks while preserving the benefits of the vast web of ties that connect the United States and China.
U.S. policymakers should seek a more durable basis for coexistence, striking a careful balance to ensure that efforts to address the real threats from China do not undermine the very values and interests they aim to protect. Deterrence, particularly in the Taiwan Strait, can be achieved only with the backing of strong diplomacy that combines credible threats and credible assurances. And both deterrence and prosperity require some degree of economic integration and technological interdependence. If policymakers overplay competition with Beijing, they risk more than raising the likelihood of war and jeopardizing efforts to address the many transnational challenges that threaten both the United States and China. They also risk setting the United States on a path to what could become a pyrrhic victory, in which the country undermines its own long-term interests and values in the name of thwarting its rival.
REFLEXIVE HOSTILITY
Prominent Republicans have accused the Biden administration of weakening the United States’ position by prioritizing diplomatic engagement over more confrontational measures designed to undermine the Chinese government. They portray China as an existential threat and at the same time claim that an expanded U.S. military presence and more confrontational measures would somehow lead Beijing to capitulate to American power. But this is even less likely to succeed than the current approach. The Trump administration adopted a hostile posture in its last months, calling publicly for the Chinese people to choose a different form of government, running covert operations to undermine the Chinese Communist Party, and discarding norms of unofficial interaction between Taipei and Washington, which raised tensions across the Taiwan Strait to a point where the Chinese government began to prepare for a surprise attack by the U.S. military. Resuming a similarly confrontational policy today would only raise the specter of a shooting war with China and aggravate the very allies the United States would want by its side in a fight.
The Biden administration, by contrast, has rightly invoked a sense of shared purpose, underlining the urgency of defending an international order in which might does not make right and working with governments of different persuasions to tackle problems that respect no borders or walls.
But in the broader U.S. public and policy conversation, the impulse to thwart China often overwhelms efforts to work toward common objectives and advance U.S. interests. Rhetoric about winning the twenty-first century reinforces the idea that competition is zero-sum, accelerating a rush on both sides of the Pacific to prepare for conflict and making it all too easy for critics in both societies to deride ordinary forms of diplomatic, commercial, and scientific interaction as naive at best and appeasement at worst.
The impulse to thwart China often overwhelms efforts to work toward common objectives and advance U.S. interests.
This emphasis on preparing for worst-case scenarios prevails in both countries. Beijing’s and Washington’s steps to reduce their exposure to coercion and subversion dominate the public and policy conversation, shrinking the space for efforts to consider bounds on competition that could underpin a more stable and productive coexistence. Any coexistence would be uneasy, built not primarily on trust but on credible threats and assurances—deterrence paired with steps toward a modus vivendi that both countries and peoples could live with and prosper within.
Unfortunately, the current mix of policies in Beijing and in Washington is leading in the opposite direction. Despite renewed diplomacy, and even though disciplined U.S. officials may refrain from using the term “adversary” or “enemy” to describe China, the characterization of Beijing as a competitor that Washington needs to beat bleeds into almost every domain of the bilateral relationship. U.S. officials, researchers, and businesses have legitimate reasons to interact with their Chinese counterparts, at the very least to gain insight into what Chinese scientists and other innovators are working on. Yet even mutually beneficial exchanges become hard to justify when the United States has defined China as the principal challenge to its national interests (and China has done the same with the United States). And pragmatic assessments of the cost of sweeping tariffs to U.S. pocketbooks or how restrictions on doing business with Chinese biotech companies could limit access to lifesaving drugs have not stopped such proposals from gaining momentum.
In China, the situation is worse. Xi has spoken of stabilizing the relationship and promoting people-to-people ties, but rhetoric about “winning the future” and leapfrogging the United States to dominate frontier technologies has hardened perceptions of Beijing’s intentions and undermines its assurances that China does not seek to replace or displace the United States. China’s actions have compounded these fears. To prepare for a potential conflict with the United States, China has accelerated efforts to reduce its own reliance on key technological imports, embed vulnerabilities in critical U.S. infrastructure, expand its nuclear arsenal, and bolster ties with Russia—all of which deepen the spiral of enmity and suspicion. Meanwhile, Beijing’s exit bans (which have prevented the family members of individuals involved in legal disputes from leaving the country), cumbersome strictures on international exchanges and visits, and restrictions on foreign journalists and media organizations have hindered ordinary interactions between American and Chinese people.
Both countries’ zero-sum rhetoric and preparations for conflict are furthering a gradual descent into hostility and estrangement, reinforcing fears of a worst-case scenario and undermining the credibility of tactical assurances. Restoring high-level contacts and summits is necessary but insufficient to halt the slide, especially given the imminent leadership turnover in the United States. Diplomacy can help correct the most exaggerated misperceptions, but it can do only so much to stabilize the relationship without both sides investing more in a principled coexistence.
THE UPSIDE OF INTEGRATION
To halt this spiral, Beijing and Washington will need to identify the outcomes they wish to see, avoiding measures of success that are defined by slowing down or one-upping the other. Pursuing resilience and deterrence, not primacy or hegemony, would set them on a more stable course. Post–Cold War U.S. unipolarity in global politics was the exception, not the rule. Today, neither China nor the United States can aspire to dominance across every sector and every technology.
The nature of technological development makes it impossible to foresee precisely how new and emerging technologies will reshape both daily life and the battlefield. It is therefore imperative that China and the United States maintain a degree of integration in order to detect and learn from new advances. If the technological leaders in a given sector are Chinese, Washington should want U.S. firms to have access to the latest innovation. Right now, Chinese manufacturers are far in front in solar, battery, and electric vehicle production. Licensing Chinese technology to construct an electric vehicle factory in the United States, for example, would build domestic expertise and help U.S. automakers transition more quickly with top-of-the-line technology. Opposition to such moves on the unsubstantiated grounds that renewable technology could be a Trojan horse for communist influence is both misguided and counterproductive to U.S. interests.
An emphasis on preparing for worst-case scenarios prevails in both Beijing and Washington.
Diversification is healthy, but the United States needs to establish limits on decoupling and de-risking. Rewiring international supply chains comes with inflationary costs. Washington also derives strategic benefits from economic integration. China’s entanglement in the global economy and its dependence on international technology, investment, and markets are important deterrents to aggression, as they make clear what Beijing has to lose from military conflict. And U.S. efforts to restrict the access of Chinese companies to advanced technology can backfire. Such measures can hinder the ability of firms in developed democracies to innovate and remain competitive, as well as incentivize firms in China to rely more heavily on the Chinese government and domestic suppliers than they would otherwise—a combination that could create the very juggernaut that the initial restrictions were designed to stymie.
Balancing the risks and benefits of economic and technological integration is a hugely complex task, one that is already underway as the Biden administration evaluates and updates the parameters of its “small yard, high fence.” Export controls and other restrictions can protect strategic sectors, but they can also slow technological progress. The process of calibrating these tools therefore requires a rigorous assessment of tradeoffs. By bringing in more perspectives from industry and the research community, the U.S. government can better forecast the long-term effect of restrictive measures on American innovation and economic vitality.
STRIKING A BALANCE
Structural forces are at play in the power dynamic between China and the United States, but the future is still unwritten. To a large degree, it rests on choices made in Beijing and Washington. Arresting the slide toward conflict may seem impossible under the current Chinese leadership, but Beijing’s preoccupation with economic and political stability gives it a reason to explore ways to ease tensions. At the same time, nothing about adjusting Washington’s approach assumes that Beijing’s intentions are somehow benign or nonthreatening. The Chinese Communist Party’s stated interests and values are clearly in conflict with a lot—although not all—of what the United States seeks at home and in the world. Still, U.S. analysts and policymakers should not reflexively assume that China’s objectives are maximalist and unchanging without rigorous examination and debate.
Some objectives, such as Beijing’s ambition to absorb or “reunify” with Taiwan, may be immutable. But the time and manner—peaceful or otherwise—of action in service of that goal are not fixed. There is no credible evidence that Xi has set a deadline to resolve the situation once and for all. Although some hawkish voices in China appear eager to anticipate a use of force, most experts agree that Xi still sees a military conflict over Taiwan as a crisis to be avoided rather than an opportunity to be exploited.
Beijing and Washington must avoid measures of success that are defined by slowing down or one-upping the other.
This is not an argument for reflexive accommodation. On the contrary, to get to a modus vivendi the United States will need to improve deterrence, which will involve more than just issuing threats and bolstering military capabilities. As Bonnie Glaser, Thomas Christensen, and I wrote in Foreign Affairs last year, the United States can and should make clear that its threats are conditional on China’s behavior, not efforts to shift the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Such assurances are not the same as concessions. Assurances would sharpen Beijing’s choices by conveying Washington’s intent to inflict harm only if China chooses escalation over restraint; unilateral concessions, such as Trump’s suggestion that the United States has little role to play in the Taiwan Strait, would risk inviting Chinese adventurism.
Many in Washington have concluded that rather than trying to slow China down, the United States should run faster. As the political scientist Amy Zegart has written, “simply thwarting China will do nothing to spur the long-term innovation the United States needs to ensure its future security and prosperity.” To retain the country’s position as a hub for global talent and innovation, U.S. policymakers should encourage international students and researchers—including those from China—to come, stay, and contribute to scientific progress in the United States. Efforts to prevent research conducted in the United States from being used to undermine U.S. economic and national security must be carefully tailored to avoid smothering the very asset they aim to safeguard. Guidelines released by the Biden administration’s Office of Science and Technology Policy in July, for example, cite the need to balance research security with “preserving the openness that has long enabled U.S. R&D leadership throughout the world and without exacerbating xenophobia, prejudice, or discrimination.”
GETTING CHINA RIGHT
The transition to a new presidential administration provides an opportunity for a necessary recalibration that moves U.S.-Chinese relations toward a more stable and productive footing. U.S. partners and allies would welcome the shift, as most of them seek constructive relationships with China and do not want to take sides in a contest between Washington and Beijing. Domestically, a bipartisan majority of Americans surveyed in 2023 by the nonprofit organizations National Security Action and Foreign Policy for America said that avoiding war and reducing tensions with China was a very important goal—more important than preparing for a potential conflict. These polls suggest that there is political space to debate and refine policies on China. Expected political costs of appearing soft on China have often not materialized; Trump’s praise of Xi’s governing style and commitment to “saving TikTok” (which is owned by a Chinese company) from attempts by some U.S. politicians to ban it has not dampened his public support. Meanwhile, protectionism has not delivered the anticipated political benefits; the leader of the Teamsters, one of the United States’ largest labor unions, joined the Republican National Convention even though the Biden administration expanded upon Trump-era tariffs on imports from China. And the Trump campaign has taken contradictory positions on Chinese investment in the United States, first welcoming it and then opposing it, without apparent repercussions.
The prospect of a political transition and the absence of solidified public attitudes in the United States create a window for policymakers to refine their assumptions about what is driving China’s activities, how great a threat those activities pose to U.S. interests, and what responses are warranted. If they lean into fear and expedience, they will fall victim to the kinds of binary thinking that equate diplomacy with appeasement and the mere presence of Chinese-born individuals in the United States (or Americans in China) with duplicity. That mentality is dangerous and self-defeating. Diplomacy is not appeasement; it is an indispensable tool for communicating the threats and assurances that are necessary for effective deterrence. And countering Beijing’s efforts to extend its extraterritorial control is crucial to defending American liberties. But people born in China or of Chinese descent should not be categorically treated as a fifth column in the United States; the diaspora has been a hotbed for resistance, which is precisely why the CCP is so bent on monitoring and intimidating it. And if the United States were to go so far as to enact bans or visa restrictions on the basis of national origin, it would compromise the very principles of nondiscrimination and equality before the law that embody the American ideal.
The United States faces real challenges in addressing China’s espionage, cyberattacks, and other illicit and nonmarket practices. But policies to combat these threats must not undermine the strengths they are meant to protect. Right now, much of the U.S. public and policy conversation is consumed by how to counter China and defend American workers, infrastructure, technology, and intellectual property against foreign threats. This focus downplays the domestic harms that measures ostensibly aimed at strengthening U.S. national security can have on the health and vibrancy of the United States’ democracy, society, and innovation ecosystem. Getting China right is critical to the United States’ success, both under the next president and for years beyond.
- JESSICA CHEN WEISS is David M. Lampton Professor of China Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute Center for China Analysis, and a former member of the U.S. State Department’s Policy Planning Staff.
Foreign Affairs · by Jessica Chen Weiss · September 16, 2024
7. The Crumbling Nuclear Order
Conclusion:
The United States must continue to invest in its alliances, extend its commitment to deterrence, and engage in honest dialogue with both nuclear and nonnuclear states, making clear the stakes if the current slide continues. The nuclear order is quietly breaking down, and a breach in just one of its pillars could catastrophically undermine them all.
The Crumbling Nuclear Order
How to Save the Norms Against Testing, Building, and Using the Ultimate Weapon
September 16, 2024
Foreign Affairs · by Doreen Horschig and Heather Williams · September 16, 2024
The risk of nuclear war is the highest it has been since the end of the Cold War. The cause lies primarily with Russia’s ongoing nuclear threats and drills amid the conflict in Ukraine, but not with Russia alone. Tensions in the Middle East may spur Iran to speed up its suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. North Korea continues to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal. And if Donald Trump wins a second term, the United States could return to nuclear testing as well, as Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien suggested in Foreign Affairs this summer.
Together, these developments represent a challenge to the institutions, rules, and taboos that have prevented the use of nuclear weapons since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But the erosion of this nuclear order is not happening in isolation. Autocratic leaders––primarily in China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia––often work in concert as part of a quest to undermine the existing international order, challenging norms related to human rights, international borders, and, increasingly, nuclear weapons. Despite the success of global diplomatic efforts to establish norms around the use of nuclear weapons, the world can no longer assume that nuclear weapons will not be used in a conventional conflict.
NUCLEAR BREAKDOWN
Norms are essentially rules of the road. They can be embodied by institutions, such as the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the 1997 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the case of nuclear weapons. But as a “standard of appropriate behavior,” norms are not always concrete. In the nuclear order, norms can prevent states from using nuclear weapons through constraining mechanisms; the so-called nuclear taboo relies on the widespread moral and political rejection of nuclear weapons to discourage their use. Norms can also compel states to abide by their treaty commitments through prescriptive mechanisms.
By now, most states have pledged to not build or test nuclear weapons. Norms against nuclear use, proliferation, and testing are well established but have been historically contested, especially the norm against nuclear testing. In a recent study, we found that these norms, which have been firmly in place since the mid-twentieth century, are increasingly being challenged by a handful of actors. One particular vulnerability is the norms’ interconnectedness: if one norm, such as that against nuclear testing, is violated, then other norms, including nonuse and nonproliferation, could also become threatened. Thus, a rejection of one nuclear norm might spur a rejection of the entire nuclear order.
In the worsening security environment of recent years, international leaders and nuclear experts have suggested that all three norms could be further challenged. In October 2022, the U.S. intelligence community estimated that the risk of nuclear use in Ukraine could rise to 50 percent—effectively a coin flip. Robert Floyd, the executive secretary of the CTBT, stated that “progress risks unravelling absent a legally binding ban on nuclear testing.” Although the majority of states (187) are signatories to the CTBT and observe the norm against nuclear testing, the treaty has yet to enter into force because some nuclear-capable states have not yet ratified it over strategic and technological concerns, including fears that verifying compliance will be difficult and that some signatories might not abide by the terms of the treaty.
If nuclear norms continue to break down, the world might become a much more dangerous place. More frequent nuclear testing, for example, could have devastating humanitarian and environmental results. For a glimpse of such effects, recall that an American test in 1954 of a high-yield nuclear weapon on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands vaporized three islands, contaminated 15 more, and caused the development of thyroid tumors among the population. Amid a growing number of regional conflicts, the consequences of a world with no nuclear taboo and no norm against the use of nuclear weapons could be even more catastrophic.
WORKING IN CONCERT
The widening array of actors contesting the international order makes the preservation of norms around nuclear weapons all the more important. Since 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping has insisted that China under his leadership is competing for the future of the international order, challenging the alliances, institutions, and principles that the United States has long relied on to shape the international system. A decade ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin also called for a new world order more aligned with Russia’s interests. In August 2024, he signed a decree to “provide assistance to any foreigners who want to escape the neoliberal ideals being put forward in their countries and move to Russia.” China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia are increasingly enabling one another in an “axis of upheaval,” as Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine argued in Foreign Affairs, whereby “the growing cooperation among [the four countries] is fueled by their shared opposition to the Western-dominated global order, an antagonism rooted in their belief that that system does not accord them the status or freedom of action they deserve.”
These four powers are bent on contesting all three major nuclear norms. They rely on nuclear weapons—and the specter of those weapons—to achieve their regional and strategic aims. And all are willing to undermine the nuclear order to do so. Russia and North Korea have both threatened to use nuclear weapons in recent years. Putin stated in February 2024 that Western nations “must realize that we [Russia] also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory.” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has also repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons preemptively. China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal while opposing arms control talks. Iran has contested the norm against nuclear proliferation, developing key components for a nuclear weapons program that belies Tehran’s claims of peaceful intentions and that has been harder to curb since the United States’ withdrawal in 2018 from the nuclear deal that aimed at limiting Iran’s weapons program in exchange for sanctions relief. North Korea also rejected curbs against proliferation through its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003 and its subsequent development of nuclear weapons and missile technology, its nuclear tests, and its defiance of international sanctions.
Countries are most concertedly challenging the norm against nuclear testing, the weakest of all the nuclear norms. The most blatant recent violation of the three norms occurred with North Korea’s 2017 test of what is suspected to have been a thermonuclear weapon. Less blatant but still relevant are its ongoing threats to test again. These actions have not only showcased advancements in North Korea’s nuclear capabilities but also challenged the global consensus against nuclear testing. Russia has indicated a willingness to resume nuclear testing amid heightened geopolitical tensions. A resumption of nuclear testing, particularly by a state other than North Korea, which is widely regarded as a pariah, would undermine the norm and raise concerns about a new arms race. And all of this nuclear saber rattling increases the risk of a conventional war flaring into a nuclear conflict.
It is worth noting that authoritarians are not the only ones who have challenged nuclear norms. The United States broke with global norms when it failed to ratify the CTBT in 1999, as did South Korean political advisers when they suggested that South Korea develop an independent nuclear weapons program.
ON THE BRINK
The nuclear order is in danger, and no country can uphold it alone. The United States should therefore prioritize two sets of international partnerships that could enforce nuclear norms in this interconnected environment. First, Washington must expand its relationships with countries in the global South, many of whom would be ready partners to challenge intransigence and norm contestation. Indeed, countries such as Mexico have voiced concerns about the recent erosion of the nuclear order, including the risks of nuclear use and the increasing salience of nuclear weapons. Both Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have sought to constrain Putin, reminding the Russian president that the use of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine would be unacceptable.
The threats to the nuclear order offer an opportunity for consensus building. Countries should pursue more regional engagement and dialogue and develop better understandings of different perspectives on nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed states, for instance, view nuclear weapons as essential for their own security, but many states that do not have these weapons see them as fundamental threats to global peace, advocating instead for total disarmament. Building consensus might require uncomfortable conversations about concerns that the United States is not fulfilling its own responsibilities to the nuclear order—it is among a handful of states that have signed the CTBT but have failed to ratify the treaty. Nevertheless, one goal of these dialogues should be to demonstrate that not all the states that possess nuclear weapons are alike, and they should not be treated as a monolith in international diplomacy. Many non-nuclear states blame all nuclear possessors equally for the erosion of nuclear norms without calling attention to the riskiest behaviors, such as Russia’s nuclear saber rattling in Ukraine. Dealing with nuclear states individually can help isolate responsible behaviors from irresponsible behaviors and tailor pressure on those states actively resisting the nuclear order.
A second priority should be to reinforce partnerships with U.S. allies in NATO and in the Indo-Pacific to uphold existing nuclear norms. A particular challenge, however, will be that steps to strengthen one norm could indirectly weaken others. For example, a nuclear deterrent against escalation might strengthen the norms of nonuse and nonproliferation because increased security would decrease the need for nonnuclear powers to develop independent nuclear capabilities. At the same time, it could present obstacles for long-term arms control and disarmament by increasing the salience and perceived value of nuclear weapons. For this reason, the United States and its partners should embrace a dual-track approach, supporting deterrence––such as through recent statements by Biden administration officials indicating that the United States may have to expand its nuclear modernization plans––while also exploring creative solutions for nuclear risk reduction and norm strengthening. For instance, the United States could encourage Japan—the only country to have experienced the devastation of nuclear weapons in war—to facilitate dialogue between nuclear-armed states and nonnuclear states in the interest of norm preservation.
The United States must continue to invest in its alliances, extend its commitment to deterrence, and engage in honest dialogue with both nuclear and nonnuclear states, making clear the stakes if the current slide continues. The nuclear order is quietly breaking down, and a breach in just one of its pillars could catastrophically undermine them all.
- DOREEN HORSCHIG is an Associate Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a Nonresident Research Associate at the University of Central Florida.
- HEATHER WILLIAMS is Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an Associate Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard Kennedy School.
Foreign Affairs · by Doreen Horschig and Heather Williams · September 16, 2024
8. ‘I Met Trump’s Would-Be Assassin.’ (The Free Press)
Background we are not getting from the mainstream media yet.
See the 4 minute video from 2023 here. Mr. Routh is at about the 3 minute mark. https://www.semafor.com/article/03/08/2023/ukraine-is-turning-down-hundreds-of-afghan-soldiers-who-want-to-join-its-war-effort
Excerpts:
But Routh hardly seemed a career criminal to Tanya. “He reminds me of Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading, if I am completely honest,” says Tanya, referring to the Cohen Brothers black comedy and its protagonist—a bumbling, dim-witted personal trainer who attempts to blackmail a CIA analyst. “A guy who is overzealous and goes a little overboard on the conspiratorial side of things. But until he does something terribly wrong, nobody quite thinks of him that way.”
“Ryan Routh wasn’t a story, until he allegedly went to Trump’s golf course with a gun.”
“He was just a harmless loon, who didn’t do anything too crazy,” Free Presser Tanya Lukyanova said. (Ryan Routh via X)
‘I Met Trump’s Would-Be Assassin.’
https://www.thefp.com/p/ryan-routh-trump-would-be-assassin
Free Presser Tanya Lukyanova interviewed Ryan Routh last year. ‘He was this zealous guy, an American who really wanted to volunteer to help Ukraine.’
By Oliver Wiseman
September 16, 2024
Free Presser Tanya Lukyanova interviewed Ryan Routh last year. ‘He was this zealous guy, an American who really wanted to volunteer to help Ukraine.’
By Oliver Wiseman
September 16, 2024
Like
Comment
Share
Barely two months after a bullet came millimeters from taking Donald Trump’s life at a rally in Pennsylvania, the Secret Service spotted a gunman hiding in the bushes at his golf club in West Palm Beach and opened fire. The man fled and was later detained. Trump was unharmed. “Nothing will slow me down,” he said in an email to supporters.
Law enforcement said they did not know if the suspect had fired a shot Sunday, but that he had an “AK-style” rifle with a scope and was about 400 yards from the former president. “With a rifle and a scope like that, that’s not a long distance,” said Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw. Law enforcement also identified the suspect in custody.
Ryan Routh is not a name that was familiar to most Americans when he was identified yesterday as the suspected would-be assassin of Donald Trump. But when it was made public, my colleague Tanya Lukyanova got a call from someone she used to work with. Why? Because Tanya had interviewed Routh last year over video for a piece she reported for Semafor on American-trained Afghan commandos who wanted to fight for Ukraine.
Routh had started something called the International Volunteer Center, which purported to help foreigners seeking to assist Ukraine’s war effort. He spoke to Tanya about his frustration with Kiev over how it handled foreign fighters. “Ukraine is very often hard to work with,” he told Tanya. “Many foreign soldiers leave after a week in Ukraine or must move from unit to unit to find a place they are respected and appreciated.”
“He was this zealous guy, an American who really wanted to volunteer to help Ukraine,” says Tanya of Routh, whom she spoke to for about twenty minutes over video while he was perched outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., last summer.
“You can tell right away that he’s crazy, but I think people thought, ‘Who cares? He’s supporting the right cause,’ ” said Tanya. “Everyone knew him as a little zealous, a bit much. But nobody really cared about that ‘too much’ because he was on the side of good. He was helping Ukraine.”
Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw holds a photograph, during a press conference, of the rifle and other items found near where the suspect was discovered. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Back then, “he was just a harmless loon, who didn’t do anything too crazy.” (Though not totally harmless: records indicate a long list of run-ins with the law in North Carolina, including a 2002 conviction for possessing a fully automatic machine gun.)
But Routh hardly seemed a career criminal to Tanya. “He reminds me of Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading, if I am completely honest,” said Tanya, referring to the Cohen Brothers’ black comedy and its protagonist—a bumbling, dim-witted personal trainer who attempts to blackmail a CIA analyst. “A guy who is overzealous and goes a little overboard on the conspiratorial side of things. But until he does something terribly wrong, nobody quite thinks of him that way.
“Ryan Routh wasn’t a story, until he allegedly went to Trump’s golf course with a gun.”
Oliver Wiseman is a writer and editor for The Free Press. Follow him on X @ollywiseman.
This piece was first published in our news digest, The Front Page. To get our latest scoops, investigations, and columns in your inbox every morning, Monday through Thursday, become a Free Press subscriber today:
9. New York Times Reporter Revisits Earlier Interview With Suspect at Trump Golf Course
I have to withdraw my comment about the mainstream media. I should have known that one of our nation;'s best war correspondents, and former Marine, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, could weigh in on this issue.
Clearly Mr. Routh had delusions of grandeur.
New York Times Reporter Revisits Earlier Interview With Suspect at Trump Golf Course
Ryan Wesley Routh wanted to fly Afghan veterans to fight against Russia in Ukraine, an endeavor he seemed ill prepared to orchestrate.
F.B.I. agents outside the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Sunday evening.Credit...Saul Martinez for The New York Times
By Thomas Gibbons-Neff
- Published Sept. 15, 2024
- Updated Sept. 16, 2024, 8:05 a.m. ET
Leer en español
Last year I was working on an article about foreign fighters and volunteers in Ukraine. The piece focused on people who were not qualified to be allowed anywhere near the battlefield in a U.S.-led war and yet were fighting on the front against Russia, with access to weapons and military equipment.
Among the people I interviewed: Ryan Wesley Routh, the 58-year-old man whom the F.B.I. is investigating in what it is calling an assassination attempt against former President Donald J. Trump on Sunday.
I was put in touch with Mr. Routh through an old colleague and friend from Kabul, Najim Rahim. Through the strange nexus of combatants as one war ended and another began, he had learned of Mr. Routh from a source of his in Iran, a former Afghan special operations soldier who was trying to get out of Iran and fight in Ukraine.
Mr. Routh, who had spent some time in Ukraine trying to raise support for the war, was seeking recruits from among Afghan soldiers who fled the Taliban. And so the former Afghan soldier reckoned Mr. Routh could get him to the Ukrainian front. (Anything, even war, was better than the conditions in Iran for Afghans after the Taliban retook Kabul in August of 2021.)
There were a few complications. Mr. Routh, a former construction worker from Greensboro, N. C., said he never fought in Ukraine himself — he was too old and had no military experience.
But like many foreign volunteers who showed up at Ukraine’s border in the war’s early months, he was eager to cast aside his former life for something far more exciting and make a name for himself.
“In my opinion everyone should be there supporting the Ukrainians,” he told me, his voice urgent, exasperated and a little suspicious over the phone.
When I talked to Mr. Routh in March of last year, he had compiled a list of hundreds of Afghans spread between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan whom he wanted to fly, somehow, to Ukraine. Mr. Routh told one Afghan he was helping: “I am just a civilian.”
My conversation with Mr. Routh was brief. He was in Washington, D.C., he said, and had planned for a two-hour meeting with some congressmen about Ukraine. (It’s unclear if that meeting ever happened.)
By the time I got off the phone with Mr. Routh some minutes later, it was clear he was in way over his head.
He talked of buying off corrupt officials, forging passports and doing whatever it took to get his Afghan cadre to Ukraine, but he had no real way to accomplish his goals. At one point he mentioned arranging a U.S. military transport flight from Iraq to Poland with Afghan refugees willing to fight.
I shook my head. It sounded ridiculous, but the tone in Mr. Routh’s voice said otherwise. He was going to back Ukraine’s war effort, no matter what.
Like many of the volunteers I interviewed, he fell off the map again. Until Sunday.
Najim Rahim contributed reporting.
Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a Ukraine correspondent and a former Marine infantryman. More about Thomas Gibbons-Neff
10. Are U.S. Airlines ‘Playing Into Iran’s Game’?
Many different forms of warfare including political and economic.
For most of the past year, none of the three major U.S. carriers—United Airlines, American Airlines, or Delta—have flown to Israel. (Photo by Jack Guez via AFP)
Are U.S. Airlines ‘Playing Into Iran’s Game’?
The decision to suspend flights to Tel Aviv is contributing to Israel’s isolation. So why are the three major American carriers refusing to fly there?
https://www.thefp.com/p/us-airlines-delta-american-united-suspend-tel-aviv-flights-help-iran-hurt-israel
By Jay Solomon
September 15, 2024
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, defines his campaign against Israel as being won as much through economics and psychological coercion as through victories on the battlefield. And nearly a year into the Jewish state’s war with Hamas, Iran’s military proxy in the Gaza Strip, Khamenei’s strategy appears to be advancing—with an assist from the U.S. airline industry.
For most of the past year, none of the three major American carriers—United Airlines, American Airlines, or Delta—have flown to Israel, citing the Gaza war and the security threats posed by Tehran and its military allies. And none of these airlines have offered definitive time frames for when their flights might resume. This has left Israel’s national carrier, El Al, as the only direct connection between the country and its closest ally and economic partner on the other side of the world, and has sent airfares between the U.S. and Israel skyrocketing.
In recent days, the cost of a round trip economy flight to Tel Aviv from New York on El Al is around $2,500, according to Israeli travel agencies, up from around $899 before October 7, 2023. United, American, and Delta previously all had at least one daily flight to Israel from New York or Newark, and together served Israel three times a week from Boston, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, and Washington D.C.
The suspension of the American flights is feeding into the economic and diplomatic isolation that Iran’s leaders are seeking, according to Israeli political and business leaders. “The American carriers are playing into Iran’s game,” said Eyal Hulata, who served as national security adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, from 2021–2023.
Jerusalem’s allies in Washington are urgently seeking to establish clearer U.S. government guidelines for when U.S. airlines should halt traffic to Israel, and when it can resume. If not, they warn, American carriers risk bolstering, even unwittingly, the economic coercion that Iran and Israel’s critics in the West are pursuing, often under the banner of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, or BDS.
“In my view, unless there’s an objective process put in place to prevent the politicization of air travel, I predict that in the future the BDS movement will try to weaponize air travel as a new means of boycotting Israel,” U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-New York) told The Free Press. “And a travel ban has the potential to be the most potent weapon in BDS’s war against the Jewish state.”
Torres wrote the presidents of American, Delta, and United in August asking them to map out the guidelines they followed in deciding to suspend their routes to Israel. None of the three airlines issued an official response to Torres’ letter, and his staff says they have communicated with the U.S. carriers’ government affairs teams, but didn’t disclose the result of these discussions.
Current and former Israeli officials told The Free Press they’re particularly confused by the U.S. airlines’ decisions as a number of Middle Eastern, African, and European carriers are currently flying to Tel Aviv despite these security threats. That includes three airlines from the United Arab Emirates—Etihad Airways, FlyDubai, and Wizz Air Abu Dhabi—whose government only normalized diplomatic relations with Israel in 2020 as part of the Trump administration’s Abraham Accords. These pacts seek to integrate Israel economically and diplomatically into the wider Arab world.
“They should fly to Israel exactly like the Gulf countries and others do,” said Hulata, the former national security adviser. “And if they don’t do this because they are scared of rockets, then there’s something fundamentally wrong in their decision making.”
Hulata, who now serves as a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, added: “There hasn’t been a rocket anywhere close to the airport for months.”
Passengers scan the departures board at Ben Gurion Airport on September 2, 2024. (Photo by Ameer Abed Rabbo/Anadolu via Getty Images)
The three major U.S. carriers initially halted air travel to Israel last October 7 after Hamas militants crossed the country’s southern border and slaughtered 1,200 people, mostly civilians. The airlines’ decisions weren’t ordered, however, by the U.S.’s airline regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA only cautioned American carriers against flying to Israel at the time.
The FAA’s position was actually much more restrained than in the summer of 2014. Then, Hamas rocket strikes close to Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport—the primary international hub near Tel Aviv—caused the airline authority to briefly suspend all outbound U.S. flights. Israeli officials were incensed, arguing the ban amounted to an assault on the country’s economy. American supporters of Israel, including former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, flew to Tel Aviv on El Al flights to show solidarity.
The three U.S. airlines have said in public statements that their decisions on Israel are tied solely to the security threats posed to their crews and passengers. United and Delta briefly resumed flights to Tel Aviv in June, but then suspended them in August in the wake of the assassination of Hamas’s political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, in Iran—an attack Tehran blamed on Israel and vowed to avenge.
The Iranian military and its proxies launched a barrage of missiles and drones at Israel in April in response to an Israeli strike on an Iranian compound in Syria. But they were almost all intercepted by Israel, U.S., European, and Arab air defenses. The Israel Defense Forces and Pentagon remain on high alert for another Iranian reprisal.
At present, Delta says its flights remain canceled through October 31; American Airlines cites March 2025 as a potential resumption date; and United Airlines says its services to Israel remain on hold indefinitely. “Our flights to Tel Aviv remain suspended—we look forward to resuming flights as soon as it’s safe for our customers and crew,” a United spokesperson told The Free Press.
American declined to comment and Delta said it is “continuously monitoring the evolving security environment and assessing our operations based on security guidance and intelligence reports and will communicate any updates as needed.”
This travel ban has forced Americans needing to go to Israel to either pay higher El Al fares or find more time-consuming routes through Europe. One U.S. defense expert who needed to meet Israeli security officials in Jerusalem this month to discuss the Iranian threat told The Free Press it took weeks to arrange a flight. No seats on El Al flights were available, and he eventually went via Paris on Air France. “It’s stunning how hard it was to get there,” he said.
Still, the outspokenness of a number of U.S. airline unions against travel to Israel has raised concerns among members of Congress and the Israeli government that politics may also be factoring into the flight ban.
A day after the October 7 attack, the president of the Allied Pilots Association, Captain Ed Sicher, ordered the union’s 16,000 members to refuse any requests from American Airlines to fly to the Jewish state. “As noted in APA’s initial update yesterday regarding the safe evacuation of working American Airlines crewmembers from Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that the country is now ‘at war.’ The Israeli security cabinet weighed in today, declaring that the country is in a ‘state of war,’ ” he wrote APA members. “Until further notice, if you are scheduled, assigned, or reassigned a pairing into Israel, refuse the assignment by calling your Chief Pilot or IOC Duty Pilot.”
In February, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA joined six other major American unions in calling for a formal U.S. ban on military supplies to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to a cease-fire with Hamas. “It is clear that the Israeli government will continue to pursue its vicious response to the horrific attacks of October 7 until it is forced to stop,” reads the statement from the AFA-CWA and six other unions. The spokeswoman for the AFA-CWS, Taylor Garland, has also regularly posted and reposted items on social media demanding a Gaza cease-fire and criticizing the military tactics of the Israel Defense Forces.
Garland and the AFA-CWA declined to respond to numerous requests from The Free Press to comment on Israel and whether the organization backs a U.S. flight ban if the Netanyahu government doesn’t agree to a cease-fire with Hamas. Other airline unions, trade associations, and pilots, however, downplayed the idea that politics were driving decisions, but rather cited security and basic economics. A number noted that insurance costs for the U.S. carriers rise in conflict zones, while the overall demand for flights decrease. Also, the length of U.S. flights to Israel require overnight stays for American pilots and crews, something that’s not normally an issue for European or Middle East carriers.
“Our number one concern as pilots, no matter where we’re flying—it doesn’t have to be to Tel Aviv, it can be to Toledo—it’s got to be safe and secure,” said Dennis Tajer, spokesman for the APA. “We didn’t make that call, but American Airlines did. Oftentimes, they will bring in a third layer, and that’s commercial interests.”
One pilot from a major U.S. carrier told The Free Press he regularly signs up to fly to Tel Aviv when the ban appears set to be lifted. But then the airline again cancels, following a new security assessment. “It hurts us financially, but the decision is really down to our security department,” said the airman.
The suspension of U.S. flights to Israel has contributed to a broader shock to the Israeli economy since the war with Hamas erupted last October. Israel’s calling up of 360,000 reservists after the Hamas attack, roughly 4 percent of the population, has placed a particular strain on the economy. The country’s growth contracted 1.4 percent during the second quarter of 2024 from the year earlier, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, and its exports of goods and services dropped 8.3 percent. The Israeli economy experienced a double-digit contraction in the months directly following the Hamas attack.
“Aviation has a big impact on our country because we’re like an island,” said Professor Nicole Adler, dean of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Business School. “I know that we have Syria and Egypt and so on around us. But most traffic is coming in via airlines, and it’s very sad that this war has gone on for as long as it has.”
Since October, Iran and its proxies across the region have made no secret of their desire to constrict international trade and passenger traffic going into and out of Israel. According to Iranian officials, this will both drain Israel’s economy and impose a psychological toll on the broader populace.
Much of Tehran’s efforts have centered on the Red Sea, where the Iranian-backed Houthi militia has launched hundreds of attacks on tankers and other maritime vessels transiting through the Suez Canal—some on their way to Israel. Just this month, the Yemeni militants launched six missile strikes on international maritime traffic, including on Panamanian- and Saudi-flagged oil tankers.
On Sunday, the Houthis successfully launched a long-range missile at central Israel for the first time. Israeli defense officials said their air defense system largely destroyed the projectile, though some fragments landed on agricultural land and near a railway station.
This, combined with the reduced air traffic, has prompted self-congratulatory comments from Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Khamenei, that their multifront war against the Jewish state is working. Since becoming Iran’s Supreme Leader in 1989, the 84-year-old cleric has made clear that the path toward liberating Palestine will be achieved as much through making Israel unlivable to its Jewish residents as through open warfare.
“Four million people will leave Israel. [This means] reverse migration,” Khamenei told a television audience during a June 3 speech marking the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. “In other words, the level of perplexity, confusion, and panic among Israeli officials has reached this degree. Pay attention to this! This is very important!”
Jay Solomon is an investigative reporter for The Free Press and author of The Iran Wars. Follow him on X at @jaysolomon, and read his last piece “How Close Is Iran to the Bomb?”
To support more of our work, become a Free Press subscriber today:
The Free Press earns a commission from all qualifying purchases made through book links in this article, including as an Amazon Associate.
11. Axis Of Upheaval: New Era Of Confrontation
Excerpts:
This growing confrontation is likely to further increase global tensions, much like the widespread impacts of the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars, which have halted global trade in some regions.
In conclusion, smart power and diplomatic measures may ease this pressure, and the upcoming U.S. elections could also shift the dynamics. However, the true impact of this new era of confrontation remains to be seen.
Axis Of Upheaval: New Era Of Confrontation – OpEd
eurasiareview.com · September 13, 2024
‘For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit,’ Noam Chomsky once remarked, highlighting a key critique of U.S. global dominance. Now, the U.S. faces another confrontation with its rivals—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (CRINK)—a coalition that endangers the global order, as described in the research termed “Axis of Upheaval,” coined by Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a fellow and director at the Center for a New American Security.
As the Biden administration’s foreign policy has seen deviation, these four countries are teaming up against the U.S., challenging the global political system through anti-Western and anti-hegemony collaboration that significantly challenges international political norms. Thus, America faces a new type of challenge in dealing with these four autocratic states. In the two years since Russia’s invasion, the evidence of their convergence has mounted, making it impossible and even irresponsible to dismiss their alignment. Let’s explore the situation currently unfolding on the world stage.
First, Russia is engaged in a war that marks Putin’s point of no return in his effort to undermine NATO and the West—particularly the U.S.—pursuing a long-term confrontation. To better position Moscow for this conflict, Putin has effectively doubled down on relations with like-minded partners: China, Iran, and North Korea. This has made Russia the key catalyst of this emerging axis.In the current war, Moscow has deployed over 3,700 Iranian Shahed drones and is producing 330 of these drones monthly inside Russia.
Moreover, Russia and Iran share deep ties, which are expected to extend further in coming years. In 2022, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi proposed a 20-year cooperation agreement, which will be finalized soon. In exchange, Russia has provided Iran and Iranian proxies, such as Hezbollah, with more weapons, especially following the onset of the 2023 Israel-Hezbollah conflict. In 2024, this dynamic saw little change. Russia defended Hezbollah and Hamas, offering arms and ammunition to groups that share Iran’s political vision.
Next, China—a rising global power—has emerged as a new threat to the U.S. in global trade, military, and diplomatic affairs, which has raised concerns for the U.S. as China’s ambition is to surpass America’s sphere of dominance from Asia to Africa and Latin America.As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China wields significant influence, often using its position to neutralize U.S. and allied actions towards North Korea, Russia, and Iran. China has also solidified its relationship with these countries, dealing treaties with Iran and Russia and using megaphone diplomacy with the U.S.
Following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, China became Russia’s new major oil and gas importer, effectively replacing Saudi Arabia. China exported $300 million worth of dual-use items—goods with both civilian and military applications—including microchips, jamming equipment, telecommunications gear, jet plane parts, sensors, and radar systems. These exports have helped sustain Russia’s war effort and offset the effects of Western sanctions.
Further along, Putin’s surprise visit to North Korea shocked global media, as he praised Kim Jong-un for “firmly supporting” Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Putin also promised to build trade and security systems with Pyongyang “that are not controlled by the West.” During the war, North Korea supplied roughly 2.5 million rounds of ammunition and ballistic missiles to Russia, with Russia vowing to send energy, food, and other essential goods to North Korea in return.
Diplomatically, Russia and China use their UN Security Council positions to shield Iran and North Korea from sanctions, strengthening their bond for greater aspirations. Diplomatic ties are also growing through platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS, which recently granted Iran membership.In reality, despite heavy sanctions imposed by the U.S., this axis has turned adversity into opportunity, forging stronger ties through security treaties and threatening the West by stoking conflicts in Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, challenging global stability.
“Under threat in a way we haven’t seen since the Cold War,” warned CIA Director Bill Burns and MI6 Chief Richard Moore, as the axis continues to destabilize the world order. This statement also highlights the growing fear of the Axis of Upheaval.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, the originator of the term “Axis of Upheaval,” suggested increasing defense funding to help Ukraine win the war as a way to destabilize this emerging alliance.
In response, Western nations, led by the U.S., have focused on countering the collective challenge posed by the axis. This has involved strengthening existing alliances, enhancing the Indo-Pacific strategy, and increasing the EU defense budget. Meanwhile, the Axis of Upheaval has coordinated countermeasures to bypass sanctions and undermine the global financial system by using its own currencies for trade..
This growing confrontation is likely to further increase global tensions, much like the widespread impacts of the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars, which have halted global trade in some regions.
In conclusion, smart power and diplomatic measures may ease this pressure, and the upcoming U.S. elections could also shift the dynamics. However, the true impact of this new era of confrontation remains to be seen.
eurasiareview.com · September 13, 2024
12. Over 30 Squadrons of American Reaper Drones Train For Major Maritime Special Operations Against China
I am not sure about "30 squadrons". It is not clear from the report what that means. Note the all important "patches" that are transmitting a message to the Chinese.
Over 30 Squadrons of American Reaper Drones Train For Major Maritime Special Operations Against
China
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/reaper-operations-special-ops-exercises
North America, Western Europe and Oceania , Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft
Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff
The U.S. Air Force has deployed over 30 squadrons of its primary attack and surveillance drone, the MQ-9 Reaper, for the Reaper Smoke 2024 competition, during which units simulated missions over key potential hotspots for tensions with China in the South China Sea. Hosted by the Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, Florida, and organised by the 2nd Special Operations Squadron the exercises simulated a number of missions including launching attacks over Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands. Mischief Reef is claimed by China (both the mainland and the Taipei-based Republic of China), as well as Vietnam and the Philippines, but has been under the control of the Chinese mainland since the mid 1990s. The escalation of tensions following the Obama administration’s Pivot to Asia initiative in the early 2010s led the mainland’s People’s Liberation Army to build a large artificial island accommodating a harbour and runway to defend its territorial claim. The Reaper Smoke competition allows MQ-9 squadrons to share tactics and strategies, which is vital due to the drone class’ central role in the U.S. Air Force. As summarised by Staff Sergeant Francisco Rivera-Monge, who took part in the exercises: “When it comes to the fight of tomorrow, we’re all going to be working together… Understanding each other’s capabilities is the key to success when it comes to MQ-9 survivability and the contribution in the fight for tomorrow.”
U.S. Air Force Personnel with Badges Showing Reapers Targeting China
Chief of the Air Force Special Operations Command Concepts and Capabilities Development Division Colonel Mark Jones provided further details on how training to operate Reaper drones was evolving, stating: “Air Force Special Operations Command is focused on specialised air power. The MQ-9 inside AFSOC is focused on training the fundamentals - training airmen to be skilled and adapt to use the MQ-9 in ways we haven’t used it before, for the future.” An early indication that the Reaper would play an important role in operations against China was the Air Force’s issuing of personnel with uniform badges depicting one of the drones crewed by a skeleton with a red silhouette of China in the crosshairs of its missile attacks, with this first seen in late 2020. Nevertheless, the Reaper drone’s capabilities remain relatively limited by a number of factors, most notably its limited survivability, with the drones having proven highly vulnerable to even rudimentary air defences. The Yemeni Ansurullah Coalition, against which the U.S. Navy and Air Force have been conducting operations since October 2023, has reportedly shot down eight of the drones in that time - the most recent in early September. Reapers have also been lost or taken damage over Syria on multiple occasions, and have been at the forefront of efforts to buzz and otherwise harass Russian combat aircraft operating in Syrian airspace.
13. The West has a plan to keep China, Russia out of subsea data pipes
A paper and statement is a first step. What about practical measures to defend the pipes from sabotage?
The West has a plan to keep China, Russia out of subsea data pipes
Politico · by Sam Clark · September 12, 2024
- News
- Cybersecurity and Data Protection
The initiative is reminiscent of attempts to kick China out of 5G infrastructure.
Countries signing the statement would demand network operators to have supply chain security and data security measures in place. | Boris Horvat/AFP via Getty Images
September 12, 2024 5:40 pm CET
By
BRUSSELS — The United States, European Union governments and other allied capitals are cooking up a plan to beef up the security of submarine cable networks — and that includes pushing out Chinese vendors from rollout projects.
The U.S. is drafting a “New York Joint Statement,” obtained by POLITICO, that is set to be signed later this month in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 22-25. EU member countries are giving their approval to join the pledge.
Communication cables are running massive data streams across the world and are essential to the functioning of the world economy. But they’re also vulnerable to the threat of tapping data straight from the pipes — though this is difficult and expensive — sabotage, where cables are cut or otherwise damaged, and supply chain shocks.
Russia is known to have been involved in disrupting and sabotaging these networks since as early as 2014, researchers have flagged and U.S. officials recently told CNN they’d observed more worrying activity by Russia.
Countries signing the statement would demand network operators to have supply chain security and data security measures in place, and share information in case of incidents, the draft said.
The text was first reported on by MLex.
Communication cables are running massive data streams across the world and are essential to the functioning of the world economy. | Boris Horvat/AFP via Getty Images
The New York declaration is an attempt to procure submarine cable networks from companies in allied countries — echoing the West’s efforts in past years to kick out Chinese companies from 5G infrastructure.
The concerns with Chinese equipment centers on the fear that booming Chinese suppliers are taking the market in a stranglehold.
While the list of competitors for submarine cable projects is long, the big fight is often between U.S. provider SubCom, Europe’s Alcatel Submarine Networks (owned by Nokia) and HMN Tech in China, as well as others like Prysmian (Italy) and Nexans (France), Japan’s NEC and China’s ZTT. HMN Tech is one of the fastest-growing companies in the market. It was known as Huawei Marine Networks until 2020, when it was taken over by Hengtong Group and changed its brand name.
Control over the supply chain means the West would be reliant on tech that China could at any moment stop supplying, or the suppliers could be ordered by the Chinese government to disrupt the cables’ operation.
The draft said countries will promote “reliable and trusted cable components and services.”
They also want to “encourage undersea cable network service providers and operations and maintenance providers to have transparent ownership, partnerships, and corporate governance structures” — a complaint that’s often linked to Chinese technology firms with opaque structures or ties to government-affiliated organizations.
The EU is going through an internal process to get permission from the national governments of its member countries to sign on the dotted line at the U.N. meeting. The European Commission should get permission from those representatives to sign on their behalf at a meeting next week.
Submarine infrastructure is a vulnerability that the industry is “very keen to address,” Christian von Stamm Jonasson, a consultant at Hanbury Strategy, said. The details will need “careful work … so they don’t create unnecessary trade barriers,” he added.
Politico · by Sam Clark · September 12, 2024
14. Canada eyes AUKUS membership over China concerns
Canada eyes AUKUS membership over China concerns
By George Allison - September 14, 2024
ukdefencejournal.org.uk · September 14, 2024
Canada is actively engaging in discussions with the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States to join an expanded Aukus security partnership, citing rising concerns over China’s growing influence in the Asia Pacific region.
During a recent visit to Tokyo, Canadian Defence Minister Bill Blair expressed Ottawa’s commitment to counteracting Beijing’s increasing military presence in the region.
Canada is particularly focused on participating in the second phase of Aukus, which aims to foster collaboration on cutting-edge military technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. However, details of Canada’s role in this expansion remain unspecified.
“There have been important discussions about processes and platforms on a project-specific basis on where other nations, including Japan and ourselves, might participate,” Blair stated, during his meeting with Japanese Defence Minister Minoru Kihara.
Japan is also considering its own role within Aukus. Blair expressed optimism about these negotiations, saying, “I would respectfully wait until they’ve come to their determination, but I’m very optimistic.”
The current phase of Aukus, established in 2021, focuses on helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines. Blair’s trip to Japan followed a visit to South Korea, which is similarly exploring the possibility of participating in the security partnership.
Canada’s defence responsibilities are expanding both at home and abroad, and Blair highlighted the government’s efforts to increase military spending. “Next year, my defence budget will rise by 27% over this year. And… in the next three or four years, our defence spending will triple,” he remarked.
Beyond Aukus discussions, Blair and Kihara also addressed recent incursions by China into Japanese waters, which led Tokyo to issue formal protests to Beijing.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk · September 14, 2024
15. Russia-China joint military drills end in Sea of Japan
So do China and Russia exercise freedom of navigation in the Sea of Japan? (note my sarcasm)
Russia-China joint military drills end in Sea of Japan
By Euronews with AP
Published on 16/09/2024 - 0:25 GMT+2
Share this article
Comments
Chinese state media said the drills, named Northern/Interaction-2024, aim to deepen strategic cooperation between the two countries and strengthen their ability to respond to security threats.
euronews.com
Six days of joint military drills between China and Russia have ended in the Sea of Japan.
Chinese state media said the drills, named Northern/Interaction-2024, aim to deepen strategic cooperation between the two countries and strengthen their ability to respond to security threats.
Drills are expected to continue in the Sea of Okhotsk later this month.
According to a statement by China's Ministry of Defence, the Chinese navy will also participate in the Russian navy's larger Ocean-2024 strategic exercise.
That spans the Pacific and Arctic Oceans, the Mediterranean, Caspian and Baltic Seas and involves over 400 warships, submarines and support vessels, more than 120 planes and helicopters and over 90,000 troops.
According to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV, the Chinese fleet is composed of troops drawn from the Navy of the Northern Theatre Command, including the guided-missile destroyers Xining and Wuxi, the guided-missile frigate Linyi, the comprehensive replenishment ship Taihu and three shipborne helicopters.
Russian anti-submarine aircraft fly during joint naval and air drills with China, September 14, 2024AP/Russian Defense Ministry Press Service
"Under the pretext of countering the allegedly existing Russian threat and containing the People's Republic of China, the United States and its satellites are increasing their military presence near Russia's western borders, in the Arctic and in the Asia-Pacific region," Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the start of the drills.
He also said the drills, which involved more than 90,000 Russian troops, were the largest of their kind in three decades.
Through the joint exercises, Russia has sought Chinese help in achieving its long-standing aim of becoming a Pacific power, while Moscow has backed China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
euronews.com
16. Consequences for Mongolia? Exclusive Interview With ICC Advisor
Consequences for Mongolia? Exclusive Interview With ICC Advisor
kyivpost.com · by Leo Chiu · September 15, 2024
Mongolia Putin International Criminal Court
In an exclusive Kyiv Post interview, International Bar Association Executive Director Mark Ellis discussed Mongolia’s failure to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin and its implications.
by Leo Chiu | September 15, 2024, 1:11 pm
On Sept. 4, Mongolia failed to honor the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin when he visited the country – at the invitation of Mongolia’s president.
Mongolia, as a member of the ICC, has the legal obligation to honor the arrest warrant concerning Putin’s role and complicity in illegally deporting Ukrainian children.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
But what of the legal consequences when it did not honor its obligation?
Very little, said International Bar Association (IBA) Executive Director and ICC Advisor Mark Ellis – but not all hope is lost.
In an exclusive Kyiv Post interview Ellis acknowledged that it’s a “relatively weak process” and Mongolia would not be removed from the ICC as a state signatory because of the incident. The only penalty likely will be enduring criticism from fellow member states.
“There is a system for the court in what’s referred to as the Assembly of State Parties, which is, in essence, the countries who have signed up to the Rome Statute. But it’s a relatively weak process. So, there are no penalties against Mongolia for having welcomed Putin and not [arresting] him – [apprehending] him – as required under the Rome Statute.
“The Assembly of State Parties [could] create a process to really criticize Mongolia, but that’s about as far as it will be able to go,” said Ellis.
Other Topics of Interest
After appeals from residents of the Kursk region to Russia’s President Putin asking for assistance in evacuation fell on deaf ears, a member of the State Duma wrote to the Red Cross for help.
When asked if it would be possible to have reforms within the ICC to help enforce the court’s decisions, Ellis said the court “certainly has moved as far as [he thinks] it can move.” Ultimately, the ICC doesn’t have a police force, and its enforcement functions rest upon cooperation among the signatory community, he said.
“It doesn’t have a police force. The court relies solely on the good faith efforts of states in the international community to support the court’s decisions and requests.
“So, it all comes back to the commitment of countries, both non-state parties and state parties, to support the court,” he added.
He also emphasized that enforcement relies on the international community, and he said some have an incorrect assumption that the court is to enforce the rulings.
“The enforcement remains on in the international community. I think many people – incorrectly – look to the court and they’ll criticize the court for a perceived failure to enforce their own rulings.
“But again, the court [can’t] do that. It relies on the international community to support the court, and by doing so supports the concept of international law,” Ellis said.
Ellis said there are other avenues countries could pursue to ensure that the ICC’s decisions are respected in the future – political pressure, for one.
“You can put political pressure, which I think is important, I think in this case for Mongolia, being able to pressure and make clear publicly that Mongolia has failed in its responsibility as a state party and, more importantly to me, failed to uphold international law…
“If you have an indicted war criminal with an arrest warrant, the responsibility should be to assist and [ensure] that individual is apprehended and brought to justice. That is the heart of international criminal law [related] to these tribunals,” Ellis said.
However, at the time of publication, the West has yet to impose sanctions on Mongolia because of the incident; Mongolia has cited its reliance on Russian energy as the reason for not arresting Putin.
Though enforcing the ICC’s decisions can be difficult, Ellis maintained that the purpose of Putin’s arrest warrant is also to serve as a deterrent by prohibiting him from traveling to most nations abroad – making him a pariah, he said.
“What an arrest warrant does – particularly for a head of state – it creates a scenario where that individual becomes a pariah…
“The arrest warrant is an instrument that says ‘You will be limited in where you travel,’ so I think there is a deterrent effect here,” Ellis said.
Ellis cited South Africa as an example, where he said international pressure and potential repercussions had prompted it to signal Putin not to visit in 2023.
“Last year, there was thought that he would be traveling to South Africa, and South Africa is a state party to the Rome Statute. And of course, what South Africa did was to – behind the scenes – make it quite clear that it would be inappropriate for … or best for Mr. Putin not to travel to South Africa.
“I’m not sure South Africa ever made it public that it would arrest Mr. Putin, but South Africa certainly didn’t want to be in the situation that Mongolia is in right now, to be faced with that option and that responsibility to arrest.
“Instead, South Africa simply said, ‘Don’t come,’ and that reinforces this deterrent effect,” Ellis said.
“The court is not perfect. It has gaps, and one of the gaps existing is the enforcement gap. But again, this is the responsibility of the international community more than the court,” he added.
To suggest a correction or clarification, write to us here
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
Please leave your suggestions or corrections here
Leo Chiu
Leo Chiu is a news reporter residing in Eastern Europe since 2015 with a profound interest in geopolitics, having witnessed two presidential elections in Belarus and visited numerous contested regions worldwide. He believes in the human side of journalism and that there's a story to be told behind every number and statistic.
kyivpost.com · by Leo Chiu · September 15, 2024
17. War Books: Soldiers’ Stories
War Books: Soldiers’ Stories - Modern War Institute
mwi.westpoint.edu · by Brennan Deveraux · September 13, 2024
Share on LinkedIn
Send email
The Harding Project movement has created an uptick in professional writing as many in the Army have taken up the charge to shape the force through discourse. This movement will continue to grow with the recent release of the Military Review special “how to” edition, which provides aspiring and seasoned writers alike the tools to publish their work in professional journals as well as ideas on how to increase professional discourse through unit-wide programs.
In the spirit of junior and mid-grade leaders picking up the pen, this edition of War Books highlights another side of professional discourse: soldiers telling their stories. Instead of retired general officers or war heroes, these books come from everyday soldiers, including some who remained on active duty after penning their tales. Others have shared a different kind of account shortly after leaving service. And there’s one book on this list that, while probably not intended by the author, stands as a case study on the importance of mid-grade leaders challenging the status quo with their pens. These books may not have changed the course of the Army, but each had a profound impact on me in different ways, and for at least some of them, I know I am not alone in being shaped by these shared experiences. In the end, that is the best measurement of success for aspiring writers.
Battleground Iraq: Journal of a Company Commander, by Todd Brown
This honest and raw account of what it meant to lead troops on the battlefields of the post-9/11 wars was the first military leadership book I read as a cadet. As the book is aptly titled, Brown shares his synthesized journal logs and letters back home in a way that lets readers know what it felt like to walk the streets in Iraq as a company-grade officer from 2003 to early 2004. For many, this served as a guide for some of the inherent challenges we would face as young officers stepping into leadership positions for the first time and doing so in the same neighborhoods where Brown led his soldiers as a company commander. After adding his tale to the early conversations on the war in 2007, Brown continued to serve and is currently a brigadier general and the 2nd Infantry Division’s deputy commanding general.
The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman
While Brown helped me prepare for war, Joe Haldeman helped me come back home. The Forever War is a science fiction story where Haldeman, a Vietnam veteran, forces his protagonist to face absurd and drastic societal changes each time he returns home from an intergalactic conflict. The book revolves around time dilation, and with each redeployment, the main characters find they are lost, no longer belonging to the society they signed up to defend. While the world may not change in the extreme and sometimes silly ways Haldeman portrays, to service members, it often feels that way. I have shared this book with as many first-time deployers as I could to help them prepare for the unique experience of reintegrating into society after deploying to our own forever war.
High Risk Soldier: Trauma and Triumph in the Global War on Terror, by Terron Wharton
I stumbled across Terron Wharton’s book while working through my own personal demons from a recent deployment. A mentor introduced me to the self-published memoir, and I was surprised to find such a candid reflection of the mental challenges of war. Wharton shares his darkest days, both downrange and at home. Mental health discussions have become a staple of my generation’s wars, but High Risk Soldier demonstrates that soldiers can still serve after facing post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, Wharton is still on active duty, currently a lieutenant colonel at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.
John Nagl is well known for being a champion of the Army’s reimagining of counterinsurgency doctrine in the early parts of the Iraq War. Knife Fights details the journey of bringing this doctrine to the forefront of the Army’s priorities. While the book may have been initially intended to highlight the merits of understanding counterinsurgency to senior leaders, it now serves as a case study in influencing tangible change through professional discourse. Nagl’s story reinforces numerous concepts explored in the recently published Military Review special “how to” edition, including coauthoring an article, seeking informal feedback, dissenting professionally, and building a professional network.
Major Brennan Deveraux is an Army strategist and national security researcher at the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute. Brennan is an avid writer and is preparing for the release of his own War Book, Exterminating ISIS: Behind the Curtain of a Technological War.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Spc. Devin Davis, US Army
Share on LinkedIn
Send email
mwi.westpoint.edu · by Brennan Deveraux · September 13, 2024
18. Billionaire investor warns of threat to democracy
Excerpts:
Dalio, now 75, is the founder of Bridgewater Associates - the world’s largest hedge fund with $124bn in assets . He says he thought the probability of civil war was "low, but cannot be dismissed.”
Dalio, mercifully, does not claim he is infallible. But he insists he is more often right than wrong.
“He who lives by the crystal ball is destined to eat ground glass. But I've been right in the markets about 65% of the time”, he said.
Billionaire investor warns of threat to democracy
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gqgg4zdzlo.amp
- Author,Simon Jack
-
Role,Business Editor
- 13 September 2024
A billionaire investor who predicted the global financial crisis has warned that the US election risks tipping the world’s biggest economy into serious disorder.
In a week when candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump finally faced each other in a televised debate, Ray Dalio said his biggest fear was for democracy no matter who wins on 4 November.
Mr Dalio founded the world’s largest hedge fund and is closely watched by other investors for his stock picks.
In an interview with the BBC, he said: “There's a possibility that the loser, particularly if it's the Republicans and Donald Trump, might not accept losing and you have a situation where it's a win-at-all-cost by both the left and the right, so neither side can compromise.
“My great fear is for democracy,” he said.
Regardless of the victor, Mr Dalio said he expected there to be internal migration between states based on political, economic and moral dividing lines.
“A lot of people in states like California and New York and New Jersey and so on, will go to states like Florida and Texas, partially because of taxes, but partially because of values,” he said. “There's a big gap in values”.
“This reminds me of the 1930 to 45 period in which there was an economic crisis followed by democracies becoming dictatorships. Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan had parliamentary systems, and they broke down in terms of internal conflict between the the hard left, the hard right, communism and fascism. We are today seeing modern day versions of some of these things”, he said.
There is some evidence that US migration based on values is already happening. Elon Musk announced in July he would move the headquarters of his companies X and SpaceX from California to Texas citing new rules banning schools from notifying parents that children wanted their gender redefined.
Dalio, now 75, is the founder of Bridgewater Associates - the world’s largest hedge fund with $124bn in assets . He says he thought the probability of civil war was "low, but cannot be dismissed.”
Dalio, mercifully, does not claim he is infallible. But he insists he is more often right than wrong.
“He who lives by the crystal ball is destined to eat ground glass. But I've been right in the markets about 65% of the time”, he said.
But on the most immediate question in the US he is hedging his bets and refuses to be drawn on whether he thinks Trump or Harris will win.
“I do not know how this election is going to turn out and how these things will turn out. I do know that we have an exceptionally high probability of instability”, he concluded.
19. How the Insurrection Act (Properly Understood) Limits Domestic Deployments of the U.S. Military
Conclusion:
The Insurrection Act, if deployed without restraint, could ultimately transform a constitutional democracy into a police state patrolled by the U.S. military. To protect against such potential overreach, Congress should revise the statute, and commenters across the political spectrum have already put numerous useful reforms on the table. But even absent statutory reforms, the executive branch and the courts can and should follow long-standing Justice Department guidance and interpret the current text of the Insurrection Act narrowly, both so that the act will conform to our constitutional scheme and so that we can avoid the many practical problems that likely would accompany an insufficiently justified invocation of the act.
How the Insurrection Act (Properly Understood) Limits Domestic Deployments of the U.S. Military
lawfaremedia.org · by Laura A. Dickinson
Editor’s note: This essay is part of a series on the limitations, drawbacks, and dangers of domestic deployments, from Lawfare and Protect Democracy.
The U.S. Constitution gives the president broad power both to direct the world’s largest military and to protect national security more generally. But, although executive power over national security has expanded in recent decades—under both Democratic and Republican administrations—U.S. law generally forbids the president from deploying military forces within the United States, outside the context of invasion or rebellion.
The Insurrection Act is an important exception. Although little-known and (fortunately) used sparingly, the act gives the president potentially broad authority to use the military to protect the country from threats inside the United States. While such a power can be crucial in times of genuine crisis, it also poses a serious risk of abuse. For example, former President Trump has suggested that, if elected, he would invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military to quell protests around the country, provide security at the southern border, and aid in deporting noncitizens. Democratic presidents too might be tempted to use the Insurrection Act against perceived domestic threats.
Unfortunately, the language of the act is vague and overbroad, and many experts from across the political spectrum have rightly called on Congress to revise the text. In an article forthcoming in the Harvard National Security Journal, I survey these proposed legislative reforms and argue in favor of many of them (along with reforms to other areas of the U.S. national security legal framework).
But even without amendments to the act, the statutory text, as it stands, can and should be read narrowly, for both constitutional and practical reasons. Indeed, executive branch officials themselves have long argued, in a variety of contexts, that the act must be understood to be limited in scope if it is to conform to the constitutional scheme. Practical concerns are also likely to arise if a president were to invoke the act, concerns that surfaced during a recent series of national security scenario planning exercises in which I participated. Run by the Brennan Center for Justice this summer, the “Democracy Futures Project” convened bipartisan groups of former senior government officials and other experts to game out the consequences if a future president attempted to use the Insurrection Act. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those consequences were disturbing for anyone interested in the future of democratic government.
Overbroad Statutory Text
Although the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal military personnel from engaging in civilian law enforcement operations, the Insurrection Act, first adopted in 1792 and amended multiple times since, now functions as a key exception to this rule by allowing the president to deploy U.S. armed forces domestically to address civil unrest or enforce the law in a crisis. And while the Insurrection Act is not the only federal statute that might be used to justify domestic use of the military, it is undoubtedly the most important. Insurrection Act authority has enabled the president to quell significant domestic conflicts, for example, to address racial violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan after the Civil War or to enforce court orders desegregating schools over the objection of local officials.
As currently drafted, the act authorizes the president to deploy the U.S. armed forces, federalize the National Guard, or deputize private militias in three types of circumstances.
The first and most limited path is Section 251, which allows the president to deploy troops if a state’s legislature (or governor if the legislature is unavailable) requests federal assistance to suppress an “insurrection” within that state. This provision requires direct involvement from state-level authorities and is limited to outright “insurrection,” making it somewhat less susceptible to presidential abuse.
The second trigger, Section 252, grants the president more discretion because it does not require the request of state officials and is broader in scope. Specifically, this section permits the president to deploy the military if the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” In interpreting a precursor to the Insurrection Act, in the case of Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court suggested that the president has relatively broad discretion to interpret the act’s statutory language. Nonetheless, the statutory text itself suggests that the president may rely on this provision only in extreme circumstances, such as a condition of war or a serious disruption of civilian affairs.
Perhaps the most concerning provision is Section 253, which allows the president to act if the president deems it “necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if it “(i) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution … and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect” the above; or “(ii) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” Congress added this subsection after the Civil War to address widespread violence and attacks on the Black population led by the Ku Klux Klan. But it is particularly broad and vague, and could in theory encompass even relatively minor obstructions to the “execution of the laws” of the United States or impediments to “the course of justice” under those laws, such as a small protest interfering with law enforcement activities or judicial proceedings, so long as there were a conspiracy to do so by two or more persons. (It is worth noting, however, that even this seemingly broad language would appear to require some obstruction of law enforcement and is focused on violations of federal, rather than state, law.)
Under this third trigger, the potential means of force allowed are also apparently quite broad. The statute allows the president to respond “by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means.” Thus, the provision permits not only the use of the armed forces and the National Guard but also private militias, currently defined by Congress to include “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States, and female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” The “any other means” language is also obviously both sweeping and vague.
Crucially, neither Section 252 nor 253 requires any request or approval from state authorities before the president can act. This means the president could theoretically invoke these provisions to send in the military even against the will of state and local governmental officials. Section 251 has been used on a number of occasions to send armed forces to help address labor disputes, racial unrest, and looting in response to national disasters, after requests from state governments to do so. But the other sections of the act, though broadly worded, have been invoked sparingly. Most famously, Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson relied on Section 253 to desegregate schools in the South and protect civil rights marchers in the face of opposition by state governors. In those cases, however, Section 253 was used in a limited fashion only to enforce federal court orders. Overall, the Brennan Center for Justice has identified only 30 crises in which the statute has been used over the course of 230 years.
Yet the Insurrection Act’s expansive language, particularly in Section 253, leaves it vulnerable to abuse, prompting growing calls from legal scholars and commentators for Congress to reform the law and impose tighter constraints on the president’s ability to invoke it. Experts across the political spectrum, including Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, the Brennan Center for Justice (primarily through the work of Elizabeth Goitein and Joseph Nunn), the Cato Institute, the American Law Institute, Harold Koh, Mark Nevitt, and William Banks, have put forward reform proposals. These proposals include adding more specific, substantive limits on the circumstances in which the president can deploy the military domestically; eliminating references to private militias; and adding more robust procedures to ensure transparency, set time limits without explicit congressional authorization, require the concurrence of military and local officials, and allow judicial review. Although some reforms have been introduced in Congress, none has been enacted.
Arguments That the Current Text of the Act Should Be Interpreted Narrowly
While legislative reforms would be helpful, a strong case can be made that the existing language of the Insurrection Act should be read narrowly, for both constitutional and practical reasons. In fact, U.S. executive branch lawyers have long made arguments along these lines. As a 1964 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo put it, although the provisions of the act may “appear on their face to confer broad authority to use troops to enforce federal law generally, whenever the President deems it necessary,” they are nonetheless “limited … by the Constitution and by tradition.” In another example, a 1975 Justice Department memo observed that these provisions should be invoked only as a “last resort,” language that can also be found in the 1964 memo. More recently, during the Trump administration, Attorney General William Barr advised against the use of the act to respond to protests that erupted after the death of George Floyd. And in the same context, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly “recoiled at the idea” of deploying the military under the act and, using language echoing the memos described above, argued that the act should be invoked only as a “last resort,” conditions that he urged were not present at that time.
The Constitutional Backdrop
Digging a little bit deeper into these memos, a key argument emerges: The Insurrection Act must be read against the backdrop of three different constitutional provisions—the 14th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and Article IV, Section 4. In light of these provisions, the executive branch memos argue that the discretion contained in the Insurrection Act should be understood narrowly, so the statute is used only as a “last resort,” when, as the 1964 memo puts it, “state and local law enforcement ha[s] completely broken down,” or to enforce a court order that state or local officials refuse to enforce.
14th Amendment
Though Section 253 is perhaps the most troubling part of the Insurrection Act because of its seemingly broad language, it is important to recognize that Congress enacted this section in the aftermath of the Civil War pursuant to its authority under the 14th Amendment. Specifically, Congress acted to allow the president to deploy the military to protect against violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. OLC has argued, therefore, that Section 253 contains inherent limits because the 14th Amendment requires state action. Accordingly, OLC has concluded that, absent a court order, the statutory language authorizing the president to act unilaterally without a request from the state must be interpreted to require, as a “prerequisite,” that “state authorities are either directly involved, by acting or failing to act, in denials of federal rights,” or that state authorities “are so helpless in the face of private violence that the private activity has taken on the character of state action.” Based on this interpretation, Section 253 could not be used in response to more ordinary protest activity by private parties or to address federal law enforcement matters, such as deportations.
Supremacy Clause
When the president unilaterally invokes the Insurrection Act to enforce a court order that state or local officials refuse to enforce, such action is less controversial and can be justified under the Supremacy Clause (or, as suggested in a 1957 OLC opinion, under the president’s inherent authority to compel obedience to the law). As the 1964 OLC opinion notes:
The degree of breakdown in state authority that is required undoubtedly is less where a federal court order is involved, for there the power of the federal government is asserted not simply to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, but to defend the authority and integrity of the federal courts under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
According to OLC, the flip side of such Supremacy Clause authority, however, is that without an actual court order to enforce, along with the refusal of state or local officials to follow such an order, “the situation must be one which, in the judgment of the President, involves a serious and general breakdown of the authority of state and local government in the area affected.” Again, more ordinary protest activities would not be sufficient to justify invoking the act, nor likely would general immigration enforcement.
Article IV, Section 4
Finally, Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution obliges the federal government to protect a state against “domestic violence” on “Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened).” As noted in the 1975 Justice Department memo, “this is the basis for intervention by federal troops or marshals in civil disorders occurring within the states.” Law professor William Banks has argued, however, that the “domestic violence” language in the clause means that the president could not invoke any provision of the Insurrection Act unless this standard were met. The 1975 Justice Department memo does not make this argument explicitly, but it does cite Article IV, Section 4 and states that the president should invoke the act only as a “last resort.”
Other Constitutional Provisions
Although not the focus of the Justice Department opinions, the Fourth Amendment and First Amendment to the Constitution would apply to any domestic deployment of the military under the Insurrection Act. These provisions would set limits on the use of force and provide protections for peaceful protest activity.
Practical Concerns
A president’s decision to invoke the Insurrection Act, in particular under Sections 252 and 253 without the request of a state, also raises a host of practical concerns that should counsel in favor of a narrow interpretation of the statute. U.S. executive branch officials have long highlighted such concerns, and many became evident during the Brennan Center planning exercises. Two of these exercises focused specifically on the domestic use of the military, in one case to assist at the southern border and with immigration enforcement, and in another to crack down on protests. In both scenarios, the president invoked the act to deploy U.S. armed forces and to federalize the National Guard without the consent of state officials, and in one case the president chose to deputize private militias as well.
Lack of Training
As noted by OLC in 1964, U.S. forces when deployed domestically may be asked to engage in “routine law enforcement functions” for which they have “little training.” Lack of training likewise proved to be a big concern that those playing the role of federal military officials raised in the scenario planning exercises. They emphasized that the U.S. armed forces are not well prepared to engage in domestic law enforcement activities, and National Guard training may be uneven. The U.S. Army recently updated its Domestic Operational Law , which includes rules and policies for domestic deployments. And the National Guard units assigned to a civil disturbance mission are required to conduct annual training. Nonetheless, the military, including the National Guard, generally receives more extensive instruction for overseas deployments. Overseas deployments are typically governed by international humanitarian law and related use of force rules, which are in most cases more permissive than the rules applicable to law enforcement activities. Due to the lack of preparation, military forces acting on U.S. soil may be at risk of exceeding the legal limits on the use of force and infringing on individuals’ constitutional rights, for example, under the Fourth and First Amendments as noted above. And the armed forces themselves could find these risks demoralizing.
In the scenario planning exercises, the lack of training for deputized private militias was a particular problem that led to abuse of force and general chaos.
Coordination Challenges
The invocation of the Insurrection Act, particularly without the consent of state officials, also presents serious coordination challenges, raising questions about how responsibilities are to be divided among federal, state, and local officials. In the scenario planning exercises, the coordination challenges were especially problematic when the president deputized private militias. For example, in one scenario, private militia members shot at protesters, including religious protesters, and did not follow orders from military officials. Even red state governors and other state officials in the scenario strongly objected to private militias operating in their states at all.
Risk of Alienation of State and Local Officials
Finally, OLC has raised the concern that, if forces are deployed under the authority of the Insurrection Act, it can “become[] difficult to find a way to withdraw.” This is because, once the act is invoked without the consent of state officials, “[l]ocal authorities tend to abdicate all law enforcement responsibility, leaving the troops without adequate tools—short of a declaration of martial law—to perform routine law enforcement functions.” The 1964 OLC memo also notes that, if the forces go beyond the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes, their presence may “serve[] to aggravate the emotions of the populace or alienate local law enforcement officials.”
***
The Insurrection Act, if deployed without restraint, could ultimately transform a constitutional democracy into a police state patrolled by the U.S. military. To protect against such potential overreach, Congress should revise the statute, and commenters across the political spectrum have already put numerous useful reforms on the table. But even absent statutory reforms, the executive branch and the courts can and should follow long-standing Justice Department guidance and interpret the current text of the Insurrection Act narrowly, both so that the act will conform to our constitutional scheme and so that we can avoid the many practical problems that likely would accompany an insufficiently justified invocation of the act.
lawfaremedia.org · by Laura A. Dickinson
20. U.S. attorney explains Jan. 6 Capitol riot prosecutions
Based on one's partisan view this will either resonate or be upsetting. But for those who may be non-partisan and objective and interested in assessing the facts, this may be very useful.
You can find the video at this link and the transcript as well (and it is pasted below).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-attorney-explains-jan-6-capitol-riot-prosecutions-60-minutes-transcript/
U.S. attorney explains Jan. 6 Capitol riot prosecutions
CBS News · by Scott Pelley
More than 1,000 Americans have been convicted in the January 6th, 2021 attack on the Capitol. About 350 trials are still pending and the FBI continues its dragnet for suspects. The attack that stopped the count of the presidential vote triggered the largest prosecution in U.S. history. But now, history is being challenged. Former President Donald Trump calls the convicted, "patriots" worthy of pardons. What is the evidence? We begin with the prosecutor in charge. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves told us what drives the prosecution of January 6th.
Matthew Graves: The crime was severe. It was an attack on our democracy. Once you replace votes and deliberation with violence and intimidation, you've lost the democratic process. You've lost the rule of law. But it's also about the victims, the officer victims who were injured that day, and making sure we hold people accountable for the harm that they inflicted on the 140 officers who reported physical injury.
Matthew Graves has worked in the Bush and Biden Justice Departments. Now, as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, he's won more than 1,000 January 6th convictions and lost only two of the cases at trial.
Scott Pelley: What is the best evidence that you've had?
Matthew Graves: The crimes that occurred that day are probably the most recorded crimes in all of our history. You also have the words of the defendants explaining what they were going to do or what they had done.
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves 60 Minutes
Evidence from the trials show many in the mob were determined to stop the count of the electoral vote that would certify Joe Biden's victory. They were enraged by President Trump's false claims of a stolen election.
Scott Pelley: You must've felt strongly to drive 2,000 miles to Washington.
Jerod Hughes: Yes, sir. I still feel very strongly.
Jerod Hughes came from Montana. He's a married, 39-year-old construction worker with a daughter and a grievance.
Jerod Hughes: The way this country's headed, my paycheck-- you know, my wife's disabled, and it's been hell for us to try to, you know, try to make it with the tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills, you know? And a lot of us see Donald Trump, the outsider, comin' in and tryin' to-- and tryin' to help us out, tryin' to help the little guy out against the big government.
That's Jerod Hughes at lower right in the khaki cap, among the first inside the Capitol. That's Hughes, inside, at the door, kicking it out so the mob can rush in.
Jerod Hughes: You guys don't want this. You don't f***ing want this! And we are f***ing mad! We are mad!
Jerod Hughes: No matter how I look at it, I share some of the responsibility for everything that happened that day, letting people in, being a part of that mob. I didn't personally fight any cops or engage with any officers, but I have a lot of family that are police officers. I have a tremendous amount of respect for police, and I did not like seeing them being assaulted.
Scott Pelley: We didn't see a lot of respect for police in that video.
Jerod Hughes: Well, no. Absolutely. I mean, I'll hold my hand up and say I was wrong. I should not have been screaming at those cops. It's not somethin' I'm proud of.
Others did much worse.
Daniel Hodges: I became trapped. They pinned me against the door frame, and with my arms at my side I couldn't mount any kind of defense.
Officer Daniel Hodges of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police defended an entrance known as the West Front Tunnel.
Officer Daniel Hodges of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police 60 Minutes
Daniel Hodges: Someone was pinning me with a police shield, and another member of the crowd grabbed my gas mask by the filter in front and just started essentially punching me in the face while holding onto it, and then eventually ripped it off my head-And then he stole my riot baton out of my hands and beat me in the head with it.
Scott Pelley: What were you defending?
Daniel Hodges: Democracy.
Democracy stopped for about six hours. The vote was counted at 3:44 a.m. With two weeks until inauguration day, it was the Trump Justice Department that set the standards for the prosecutions. Decisions were made by "career" prosecutors who work at Justice for years regardless of who the president might be.
Matthew Graves: The career prosecutors quickly realized that you needed guidelines in place, determinations about who was gonna be charged, who wasn't gonna be charged, and what they would be charged with. That process started in January 7th, 2021, during the prior administration. To this day, we continue to use guidelines that the career prosecutors put in place during the prior administration.
Scott Pelley: And how do they guide you?
Matthew Graves: what we're generally focusing on, of the thousands of people who you could potentially charge that day, are people who actually entered into the Capitol, people who engaged in violent or destructive behavior, people who illegally carried firearms or other weapons on Capitol grounds, and people who helped others to get into the Capitol building.
Scott Pelley: You're not charging everyone who was there that day?
Matthew Graves: That is correct. We have turned down hundreds of cases where the FBI is saying, there is evidence here, it's your determination, prosecutors, whether you think this should be prosecuted.
Scott Pelley: And why would you turn them down?
Matthew Graves: Because they don't fit within the guidelines that the career prosecutors had been using, or we don't think that there's sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves told us that January 6th charges range from, essentially, trespassing, to the most serious, seditious conspiracy.
Matthew Graves: So seditious conspiracy is a Civil-War era statute that deals with basically using force against the government to interfere with the operations of the government.
Fourteen have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. One, a militia leader, got 22 years, the longest sentence of all. All of the trials have been in open court in Washington before judges or juries, the defendant's choice. but more than 900 — 80% — have pleaded guilty.
Matthew Graves: And we've seen defendants in January 6th take full advantage of all the protections afforded under the constitution. To me, that's the picture of due process.
But "due process" is not the picture painted at Trump rallies, including this last March.
Announcer: "Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages." "Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light…" "At the twilight's last gleaming…"
That's a recording of defendants in jail. Mr. Trump has said that he's "inclined to pardon many of them."
Former President Donald Trump (during March 2024 rally): Well, thank you very much and you see the spirit from the hostages and that's what they are, is hostages, they've been treated terribly and very unfairly, and you know that and everybody knows that and we are going to be working on that, soon as, the first day we get into office, we're going to save our country we are going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots and they were unbelievable patriots and are…
The former president has also revised the history of those who died.
One of his supporters was killed by an officer defending the House chamber. Three other Trump supporters died that day—one drug overdose—two from cardiovascular disease. And a police officer died of a stroke the next day. In the debate, Mr. Trump acknowledged one death, but he said this in August.
Former President Donald Trump (during August news conference:) When you compare them to other things that took place in this country where a lot of people were killed. Nobody was killed on January 6th.
Former President Trump is, himself, a January 6th defendant in a separate prosecution led by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Trump was indicted by a grand jury for allegedly conspiring to overturn the election with lies he knew were false -the same myths that stoked rage in Jerod Hughes.
Jerod Hughes 60 Minutes
Scott Pelley: Where were you getting all of this information?
Jerod Hughes: Well, a lot of Fox News, a lot of stuff that I read on the internet. Obviously, Trump himself, you know, saying that the election was stolen.
Fox News paid $787 million to settle a suit that claimed that Fox repeatedly lied about the election and knew it.
Scott Pelley: Were the January 6th protesters duped?
Thomas Griffith: Yes.
Thomas Griffith is a conservative, retired, federal judge who co-authored, "Lost, Not Stolen," a year-long investigation by conservatives into the 2020 election.
Thomas Griffith: The conclusion of the report was that there's no evidence that fraud changed the outcome of an election in any precinct in the United States of America.
Scott Pelley: In any precinct?
Thomas Griffith: And all of the evidence, not the speculation, not the conspiracy theories, all the evidence points in one direction. And that is that President Biden won, and President Trump lost.
Judge Griffith was appointed by George W. Bush to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He retired in 2020 after working for years with most of the 29 judges who have heard January 6th cases.
Thomas Griffith: None of these judges is politically biased. These defendants had every chance in the world to defend themselves against these charges. And they didn't succeed.
Scott Pelley: You seem to be saying that justice was done.
Thomas Griffith: Absolutely, justice was done.
Thomas Griffith 60 Minutes
Justice for Jerod Hughes meant turning himself in and pleading guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding. The Supreme Court struck down that charge in another case. But if Hughes appeals, he'll face other charges that prosecutors dropped. So, after 20 months in custody, including prison, he's decided to just wrap up his last days of home detention.
Jerod Hughes: If I come to find out that I was dead wrong on this, that the election was actually legit and Joe Biden got the most votes in presidential history, I would be extremely embarrassed. I would hold my hand up and say, "I was wrong, and I was an idiot." I don't believe that though. And whether I was right or wrong, I-- I believe what we did was patriotic, because we truly believed that the election was stolen, for a number of reasons. We really believed that.
Though the vote count was delayed, the transfer of power was on time with a new president emerging from that same West Front Tunnel defended by Officer Daniel Hodges.
Daniel Hodges: If these defendants are pardoned, then so much of what they believe or believed on that day will be justified in their heads that if they do it again that they'll be protected. And it would be just incredibly destructive for the fabric of the country.
Now, the trials, themselves, will be judged by voters who will decide whether the defendants were prosecuted as criminals or choir boys.
Scott Pelley: The allegation is made that the White House is guiding your work.
Matthew Graves: I've never met President Biden let alone talked to him which is normal I would add because there are walls for very good reasons between the Department of Justice and the White House so that prosecution can focus on what it should be focused on, whether there are violations of law, and whether those violations of law consistent with the rules that we follow should be federally prosecuted.
Scott Pelley: There are people, maybe millions of people in this country, who are skeptical about what you just said.
Matthew Graves: No one is being prosecuted for their views. They're being prosecuted for their acts.
Editor's Note: D.C. Metropolitan police officer Daniel Hodges spoke in his personal capacity and not on behalf of his employer or the District of Columbia.
Produced by Aaron Weisz. Associate producer, Ian Flickinger. Broadcast associates, Michelle Karim. Edited by Daniel J. Glucksman.
Scott Pelley, one of the most experienced and awarded journalists today, has been reporting stories for 60 Minutes since 2004. The 2024-25 season is his 21st on the broadcast. Scott has won half of all major awards earned by 60 Minutes during his tenure at the venerable CBS newsmagazine.
CBS News · by Scott Pelley
21. Things Worth Remembering: The Imperfection of America
Benjamin Franklin was 81 years old when he signed the Constitution—the very same age as President Joe Biden is today. (Photo by Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Things Worth Remembering: The Imperfection of America
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged its flaws—then defended it magnificently.
https://www.thefp.com/p/things-worth-remembering-benjamin-franklin
By Douglas Murray
September 15, 2024
Welcome to Douglas Murray’s Things Worth Remembering, in which he presents great speeches from famous orators we should commit to heart. Today, ahead of Constitution Day, he reflects on the oldest Founding Father’s defense of the imperfect document on which our politics is based. Scroll down to hear Douglas read from Benjamin Franklin’s final speech.
Readers may not know that it was on this very day, September 15, that the wording of the American Constitution was at last agreed upon. Accord had been a long time coming. The year was 1787, it had been almost half a decade since the British had granted the United States independence, and the Founding Fathers had been negotiating for three months over the finer points of the document.
It would be another two days before these men officially signed it—hence why we mark Constitution Day on September 17, this coming Tuesday.
This final ritual took place in a closed room at Pennsylvania’s State House, in Philadelphia, now known as Independence Hall. It is less than a ten minute walk from where presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debated Tuesday, in a building named for the American government’s ultimate law: the National Constitution Center.
In these polarized times, readers will be unsurprised to learn that the men who gave us America have fallen rather out of fashion. A few years ago, a poll found that whereas 63 percent of voters said they viewed the Founding Fathers as heroes, among the under-thirties that figure shrank to 39 percent. Meanwhile, fully 31 percent of U.S. voters under 30 said that they saw the Founders as “villains.” Perhaps we should expect nothing less of an age in which Winston Churchill must be defended against claims that he was the “chief villain” of World War II.
It is worth reminding ourselves, then, of the heroism of the men who took up arms, and then quills, to birth this nation. Which brings us back to September 17, 1787. As the final day of this Constitutional Convention began, the document was read aloud one last time. Then came the remarks of its oldest signatory.
Benjamin Franklin was 81 years old—incidentally, the very same age as Joe Biden is today. He was too frail to speak before the Convention himself, so he passed what he had written to James Wilson, another Pennsylvanian, who read it for him. This would be Franklin’s final speech.
Formally addressed to George Washington, it was, of course, aimed at the holdouts, the critics: those who would make the perfect the enemy of the good. Franklin knew that even at this stage there were delegates who would refuse to sign. He himself had some significant disagreements with the document as it stood, but in his speech he addressed this in the most generous and compromising fashion imaginable.
“I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
That is a very fine way to bring people round to your point of view: to point out that you, yourself, are not as adamant as you might be. At twice the age of most of the delegates in the hall, Franklin imparted the wisdom of a man who has seen times, and so many minds, change. He understood that the desire to be always correct is a timeless one, and not only an error of men but an error of religions. As he charmingly puts it: “The Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong.”
Franklin’s point is that no man could ever agree with every point in a Constitution that has been put together with many other men. After all, “when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected?”
One would almost think Franklin was about to throw in the towel, refuse to sign, give up on the product of so many months of chaotic debate, so many competing claims. But what follows is a magnificent piece of oratory, and of reasoning, presenting as it does an almost evangelical case for political pragmatism:
“It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another’s Throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.
“The Opinions I have had of its Errors, I sacrifice to the Public Good. I have never whisper’d a Syllable of them abroad. Within these Walls they were born, & here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the Objections he has had to it, and endeavour to gain Partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received. . .
“Much of the Strength and Efficiency of any Government, in procuring & securing Happiness to the People depends on Opinion, on the general Opinion of the Goodness of that Government as well as of the Wisdom & Integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as a Part of the People, and for the Sake of our Posterity, we shall act heartily & unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavours to the Means of having it well administred.
“On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this Instrument.”
Perhaps the young voters who see Franklin as a villain might doubt a little of their own infallibility. We may hope that they will not need to live as long as he in order to realize that there are many instances in life when we may be obliged to change opinions, to unite with those whose perspective one may not share. This is the essence of politics, at least in a democracy.
In his speech, Franklin argued that the Constitution would last unless—or until—“the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
After his remarkable speech was given—and after the Constitution was signed—Elizabeth Willing Powel is said to have asked Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarch?”
To which he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
You can listen to Douglas reflect on Benjamin Franklin’s final speech here:
Douglas Murray will be back in your inbox next Sunday. To read his last column, about one of our greatest living playwrights, click here. To learn more about Douglas and support his work, visit DouglasMurray.net.
22. Orwell’s Word to the Wise
Excepts:
The attempt to place George Orwell in the kin of Bernie Sanders or AOC is nothing short of literary gerrymandering, no better than the "two-dimensional caricature" Beers laments in her opening. But she is also right: Orwell was not a free market capitalist. Of course, that in itself is no compelling reason why we conservatives can’t be; but it forewarns what happens when radical ideology purchases assets, private planes, and shares in Google or Facebook.
Capitalism is good. The free market is good. Limited government is good. But a word to the wise: Just as rich people can support conservatives, they can support radical leftists too—the kinds whose aims, you might say, are Orwellian.
Orwell’s Word to the Wise
freebeacon.com · by Owen Tilman · September 15, 2024
My father Leo is a Jewish refugee from the former Soviet city of Ufa. As his 19-year-old son, I left home for college last year well-versed in the evils of communist double-think, party propaganda, and the disastrous policies wedded to generations of poverty. (Oddly enough, that knowledge would soon prove useful in navigating a university campus enmeshed with riotous, degenerate protesters, but I digress.)
Those same evils were captured in formal writing promptly after the end of the Second World War by British novelist George Orwell, most notably in the luminary political commentaries of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell’s works, so articulate, comprehensive, and resonant with immigrant families like mine, have long been required readings in many high schools and entry-level college courses on historical politics across the country (that was before the left’s system-wide jettison of material that dares to speak ill of communist violence).
To my dismay, American University professor Laura Beers, in her recent work Orwell’s Ghosts: Wisdom and Warnings for the Twenty-First Century, offers what can best be described as a reinvention, repackaging, and repurposing of Orwellian thought—in that order.
The Orwell you knew—the one whose contempt for far-left revolutionary tendencies rivals that of even the coldest of cold warriors—is apparently not the real Orwell. No, he was a robust democratic socialist who, if alive today, would march in the streets shrieking into a bullhorn about the racist, imperialist inferno known primarily under its alter ego, the United States. He was, it turns out, Bernie Sanders—without the batty streaks of white hair, irritating Brooklyn cadence, and word economy the size of a chickpea.
This startling pitch to modernity is not without a clearly defined agenda. For one, Beers seeks to dispossess the modern political right of its ability to cite Orwell as an "anti-totalitarian prophet" and use his purported leftism to stonewall use of the term "Orwellian" in describing the censorship of conservative dissent by government bureaucrats and Big Tech. Equally paramount to her project is satiating the palate of the modern left, which drools at the chance to retroactively cancel writers like Orwell for daring to operate within the social frameworks of their times. A valiant, balanced mission indeed.
In the opening of Orwell’s Ghosts, Beers scolds conservatives and old-school liberals alike for their use—misuse—of Orwellian. They have taken "the complexity of [Orwell’s] political thought" and contorted it into a "two-dimensional caricature," Beers alleges.
The banning of former president Donald Trump in 2021 from then-Twitter over claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The fallout from President Biden’s now fossilized Disinformation Governance Board. Right-wingers who "cry foul" over the "supposed cancellation of … old or dead white men." None of it is actually Orwellian, Beers insists.
What does qualify, you might ask, according to Beers?
"In the United States," she answers, "we see attempts to control reality through the control of language in Florida’s 2022 ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law … to stamp out queer sexualities by prohibiting their discussion." Right, one can imagine Orwell imploding at the thought of parents shielding their third graders from school-sanctioned porn.
Beers’s strange application of Nineteen Eighty-Four to Florida’s parental rights bill was, to my surprise, not her most offensive attempt to tug Orwell into modern relevance. She aligns Orwell’s well-known socialist politics with French economist Thomas Piketty, longtime proponent of "socialism, participative and decentralized"—whatever that means—as well as Black Lives Matter, which Beers lauds as an Orwell-esque guardian of "discussion about the ways in which history continues to be taught." (Fact check: Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four describes how, following the history-washing by the Party and Thought Police, "every statue and street and building has been renamed" and "every date has been altered.") I’m sorry, Professor Beers, you were saying?
A complete induction of Orwell into the progressive hall of fame does, however, require first repenting for his "traditionalist" baggage. Beers includes vapid overanalysis of Orwell’s at-times unpleasant word choice and occasional racial insensitivity, as well as the secular humanism which led him to personally abhor abortion—all of which Beers addresses ad nauseam as a way of justifying Orwell’s sins and repackaging him as a slightly chipped, yet still precious little socialist gem.
The attempt to then repurpose Orwell as a mouthpiece of the left comes to fruition in the book’s final section, "Blueprint for Revolution: Making the Case for Democratic Socialism." Upon reaching that sentence, the ensuing pain from my burning eyes nearly made me scream in agony—but, at the request of my own integrity, I also struggled to completely write Beers off.
Speaking as the loudmouthed conservative son of a Russian immigrant, I am no more a democratic socialist than Kentucky’s freedom-loving darling Rand Paul. But maybe conservatives would be better served in not kicking Orwell’s Ghosts and adjacent texts to the curb, and once again failing to grapple with why someone as anti-communist as Orwell identified with such a hideous label. Perhaps because he recognized that totalitarian ideology has no better friend in Stalinist violence than it does in unbridled sums of money—a message that should resonate with anyone currently frustrated with the suppression of the Trump assassination attempt by Big Tech oligarchs, pro-crime prosecutors funded by George Soros, or most recently, the swift, and yes, Orwellian, page-one rewrite of Kamala Harris by corporate media.
The attempt to place George Orwell in the kin of Bernie Sanders or AOC is nothing short of literary gerrymandering, no better than the "two-dimensional caricature" Beers laments in her opening. But she is also right: Orwell was not a free market capitalist. Of course, that in itself is no compelling reason why we conservatives can’t be; but it forewarns what happens when radical ideology purchases assets, private planes, and shares in Google or Facebook.
Capitalism is good. The free market is good. Limited government is good. But a word to the wise: Just as rich people can support conservatives, they can support radical leftists too—the kinds whose aims, you might say, are Orwellian.
Orwell’s Ghosts: Wisdom and Warnings for the Twenty-First Century
by Laura Beers
W.W. Norton, 205 pp., $27
Owen Tilman was an intern at the Washington Free Beacon and is a sophomore at Yale University.
Published under: Big Tech , Book reviews , socialism
freebeacon.com · by Owen Tilman · September 15, 2024
23. Fiction in Tandem: Why ‘1984’ and ‘Brave New World’ Should Always Be Read Together
Fiction in Tandem: Why ‘1984’ and ‘Brave New World’ Should Always Be Read Together
kudzureviewfsu.com · by kudzureviewfsu · April 25, 2024
by Jameson Lombardy
It can be easy to believe that each fiction piece you read exists in a vacuum. But the truth is that every great piece of literature exists among the literary canon, and to truly glean every insight that a piece has to offer, you need to understand the context of the work, the pieces that came before and influenced it, and the impact it had on the literary canon when it was introduced. This is best evidenced by the necessity of reading dystopian staples 1984 and Brave New World together to fully understand their parallel messages.
Almost everyone has at least heard of, if not read, George Orwell’s 1984. References to its impact both inside and out of the literary world are commonplace. Since its release, the book has been used as an argument against government tyranny and celebrated as one of the most banned books of all time. 1984 certainly deserves these laurels, but as a device for understanding the signs and symptoms of government oppression, it is as inseparable from Brave New World as an axe is from its handle.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Electric Bookaloo (Jen) (@electric_bookaloo)
A little less than twenty years prior to 1984’s release, Aldous Huxley, an author and one-time mentor of Orwell, released his dystopian prediction Brave New World, a novel that described a “World State” in which babies are developed in labs rather than wombs, and designed for singular purpose in a world-wide system led by a cabal of ten world commanders. Social castes are reinforced with genetic alterations and citizens are kept pacified with weekly rations of mood-altering drugs and copious amounts of sex, as well as a plethora of state-controlled entertainment to keep the populace busy and distracted from the reality of their lives.
Anyone who’s read 1984 by now is realizing that the society Orwell described in his novel is the direct opposite of the one Huxley has created in Brave New World. Where Oceania’s citizens are kept in line with fear tactics, barbaric punishments, incessant policing, and misinformation and propaganda campaigns, citizens of the World State will never rebel because of how blinded they are by state-sponsored hedonism.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Marisa • Reader (@marisa.readsalot)
This is not a coincidence at all. As I mentioned earlier, Huxley was at one time Orwell’s teacher, and 1984 is not only a novel, but a long-form response to Huxley’s prediction of the future in Brave New World. These two books exist as two sides of one debate between student and teacher, both feeling that current events in the world following the conclusion of WWII and the reshaping of much of Europe might cause governments to trend towards tyranny, but disagreeing about how that tyranny would manifest itself. In fact, while Orwell was writing his novel, he maintained a personal correspondence with his former professor, who remained adamant that his own prediction was more likely.
Despite this connection, somewhere along the line the two pieces have become largely separated in education today, with most students being taught 1984 at some point during their schooling, and yet teaching of Brave New World is almost unheard of. In fact, in the most recent string of book bannings in Orange County schools, Brave New World was among those deemed too controversial to teach while 1984 was spared, despite both novels being about different means to the same end.
These novels are both insightful, moving, and dramatic narratives on their own, but when read independent of the other, they lose a significant portion of their meaning. The reason they are so often separated is because while they both describe a society that is the captive of their governments, one describes a society fallen to dramatic right-wing policies, and the other to dramatic left-wing policies. To truly grasp the lesson that spans these two novels, to learn what to be aware of when looking for the signs of tyranny in our governments, we must understand the virtues and the dangers of both camps. That is why it is so important that every reader, every student, and every citizen of every government should not just read one of these novels, but both.
Jameson Lombardy is a senior in the creative writing program at FSU from Satellite Beach, Fl. In addition to his role as assistant fiction editor with the Kudzu Review, he is also a third-year performer with the Flying High Circus. In his free time, he enjoys playing pool, watching movies, and reading comic books from the early 2000’s. He’d like to thank everyone at the Kudzu Review for the opportunity to edit the magazine this semester, and he encourages any readers to apply to join the staff.
Want to read more? Check out our most recent posts below!
kudzureviewfsu.com · by kudzureviewfsu · April 25, 2024
24. EXCLUSIVE: Ukraine’s HUR Special Forces Target Russian Drone Base in Syria
EXCLUSIVE: Ukraine’s HUR Special Forces Target Russian Drone Base in Syria
kyivpost.com · by Kateryna Zakharchenko · September 16, 2024
Exclusive footage from Kyiv Post sources appears to show HUR special forces attacking a Russian base in Syria, near Aleppo, on Sept. 15, where Moscow was producing and testing strike UAVs.
by Kateryna Zakharchenko | September 16, 2024, 4:31 pm
Special forces from the Khimik group of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR) attacked a Russian military base in Syria on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 15, according to a Kyiv Post source in military intelligence.
The operation took place on the southeastern outskirts of Aleppo. Kyiv Post has obtained exclusive footage.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
The base targeted by HUR special forces was used by Russian forces to manufacture and test strike UAVs, as well as to produce “camouflaged improvised explosive devices,” whose warheads were stored at the site, HUR said.
In the exclusive video obtained by Kyiv Post, filmed by an intelligence officer, a HUR flag is visible behind a berm at a distance from a garage used as a Russian base. Shortly after, an explosion occurs at the Russian facility, followed by the detonation of ammunition.
Kyiv Post military and explosive experts examined the video and deemed that the explosion was more likely triggered by a rifle shot than an RPG, perhaps striking explosives that HUR claims to have pre-planted inside.
Kyiv Post was not able to independently verify the location or time of the attack, although it appears to have taken place in desert terrain in broad daylight.
At the end of July, Kyiv Post received several exclusive videos and photos showing the continuation of the special operation by HUR units to destroy Russian forces in Syria.
According to Kyiv Post sources in the special service, the Khimik group carried out another complex strike on Russian occupation forces in Syria in late July 2024. This time, the target of the attack was Russian military equipment at the Kuweires airfield, located east of Aleppo.
Other Topics of Interest
After appeals from residents of the Kursk region to Russia’s President Putin asking for assistance in evacuation fell on deaf ears, a member of the State Duma wrote to the Red Cross for help.
In early June, Kyiv Post also published exclusive footage of Ukrainian special forces attacking enemy checkpoints, strongholds, foot patrols, and columns of military equipment in the Golan Heights in Syria.
According to Kyiv Post’s HUR source, since the beginning of the year, insurgents with the support of Ukrainian fighters have struck numerous times against Russian military facilities under the control of the so-called Russian Armed Forces Group in the Syrian Arab Republic.
What are Ukrainian special forces doing in Syria?
Russia’s intervention in Syria in 2015, initially aimed at supporting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime during the civil war, led to the permanent deployment of thousands of Russian troops there.
In the fall of last year, Moscow transferred some troops and equipment from Syria to the battlefield in Ukraine, potentially making their forces in Syria more vulnerable to Ukrainian attacks in the region.
Due to their prolonged presence in the region, the Russians have created numerous recruitment centers to enlist Syrian mercenaries for the war in Ukraine.
Mercenary recruitment is overseen by the Center for the Reconciliation of Opposing Sides and Refugee Movement Management at the Hmeimim airbase, occupied by Russia.
There, mercenaries are issued Russian passports and then incorporated into the Russian Armed Forces.
In May 2023, HUR chief Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov promised to “destroy Russian war criminals anywhere in the world they may be.”
In addition to Syria, Ukrainian HUR special forces continue hunting for pro-Kremlin Wagner mercenaries in Sudan and other parts of the African continent.
On July 29, Kyiv Post received a unique photo of Malian Tuareg rebels posing with the Ukrainian flag, showing their support for Ukraine.
In February, Kyiv Post acquired exclusive footage allegedly showing Ukrainian special forces interrogating captured Wagner Group mercenaries in the Republic of Sudan. In the video, the prisoners confess that their mission was to get to Sudan and overthrow the government there.
In January, Kyiv Post published an exclusive video allegedly showing Ukrainian drones destroying “Russian mercenaries” and their “local terrorist partners” in Sudan.
And last November, it got an exclusive video allegedly showing Ukrainian special forces performing “cleaning up” operations of Wagner fighters in Sudan.
Kateryna Zakharchenko
Born and lives in Kyiv. A journalist for Kyiv Post. Writes exclusive articles and interviews.
kyivpost.com · by Kateryna Zakharchenko · September 16, 2024
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
| 
