Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary: Recent months have seen several tragic military aircraft incidents. An F-35 Lightning II and an F-16 Fighting Falcon both crashed in New Mexico, while a vintage Supermarine Spitfire from the UK's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) crashed in Lincolnshire, killing Squadron Leader Mark Long.

-The UK's Defence Accident Investigation Branch is investigating the cause of the Spitfire crash.

-This incident has reignited debates about the safety of flying vintage warbirds, following other recent crashes involving World War II-era aircraft.

-The BBMF has grounded its fleet, including Spitfires, Hurricanes, and a Lancaster bomber, pending investigation outcomes.

Vintage Spitfire Crash: UK's Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Under Scrutiny

The past few months have been a dark time for military aircraft. An F-35 Lightning II crashed last weekend after an F-16 Fighting Falcon crashed just weeks earlier – both in New Mexico. The F-35 crash overshadowed the loss of a military aircraft in the UK, this one involving a vintage Supermarine Spitfire.

On May 25, the World War II-era aircraft – part of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight – went down in Lincolnshire near Royal Air Force Coningsby. Squadron Leader Mark Long, who was piloting the Spitfire, was killed. The UK's Defence Accident Investigation Branch has put out a request for images and video to help determine what led to the crash.

"An investigation into the cause of this tragic event has now begun," RAF Group Captain Robbie Lees, commander of the display air wing, said in a statement. "The RAF will not be offering any comment on the accident until that investigation has concluded."

The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight maintains a small fleet of vintage aircraft, including two Hawker Hurricanes, an Avro Lancaster four-engine bomber, a C-47 Dakota, and around half a dozen of the remaining airworthy Spitfires. All of its aircraft have been grounded, and its visitors center is also currently closed. It is unclear when the group’s flights will resume.

Another Old Warbird Down

Though this is the first fatal loss involving a BBMF aircraft since the unit was formed in 1957, some aviation experts are again questioning whether such flights should continue, given the age of the aircraft.

Last month, a World War II-era Douglas C-54 crashed in Alaska, killing two. In November 2022, a B-17 bomber and a P-63 Kingcobra fighter plane collided at the Wings Over Dallas air show, leaving six people dead. That followed another crash involving a B-17 in October 2019, when the bomber crashed at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut. Seven of the 13 people on board were killed, while the other six and one more on the ground were injured.

The Spitfire – The D-Day Warbird

As reported by 19FortyFive.com, the Spitfire is most closely associated with the Battle of Britain, even though the Hawker Hurricane shot down more enemy planes over the course of that campaign in 1940.

The Spitfire’s close association with that campaign might have been helped by the 1968 film Battle of Britain – far more Spitfires were available for filming, and few scenes showed the Hurricanes. As a result, many now believe that the Spitfire was the dominant fighter used at the time.

The Spitfire went on to play a significant role in the D-Day landings 80 years ago, with a total of 55 squadrons supporting the invasion of Normandy.

About the Author: Peter Suciu 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Summary and Key Points: Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree made dubious claims over the weekend that the Houthi rebels had successfully targeted the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in the Red Sea. Following these claims, images purportedly showing damage to the U.S. Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carrier circulated online.

-However, these images were quickly debunked as they actually depicted the Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov, currently undergoing extensive repairs in Murmansk.

-The Pentagon has denied any damage to the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The incident highlights ongoing issues with misinformation on social media, particularly on X (formerly Twitter).

Houthi Claims of Attacking Aircraft Carrier USS Eisenhower Debunked

We'll be the first to suggest it: Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree should be dubbed the Lying Yemeni – as his claims are as dubious as those of the now infamous "Baghdad Bob" more than two decades ago. Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf earned the nickname "Baghdad Bob," as well as "Comical Ali," for his outrageous claims made during the U.S.-led coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003.

While Saree hasn't declared anything quite as outlandish as "The infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad," the Houthi rebel mouthpiece claimed twice over the past weekend that the Iranian-back insurgent group had successfully targeted the United States Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in the Red Sea. . 

Following those claims, images were posted online that purported to show damage to the U.S. Navy's warship, the second oldest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in service. An example is at the very top of this post. 

"CONFIRMED: uss eisenhower (pictured docked for repairs in souda bay) hit and severely damaged by multiple houthi ballistic missiles. judging by extensive tent city developing on the flight deck, we assess it is unlikely eisenhower will return to service in the foreseeable future," noted @iAmTheWarax on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

That Image Is Wrong on So Many Levels: No Aircraft Carrier Damage 

The image shared on X isn't actually of USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, and it isn't even a Nimitz-class carrier.

Moreover, it isn't even a nuclear-powered vessel, and that's because as many users on social media quickly pointed out, it is the Russian Navy flagship Admiral Kuznetsov, which as The National Interest has reported on multiple occasions is undergoing an odyssey of a refit at the 35th Ship Repair Plant in Murmansk since 2018.

About the only part of the post that was believable and fairly accurate is that the carrier (Admiral Kuznetsov) is unlikely to "return to service in the foreseeable future."

Misinformation and disinformation remain serious problems on X, and the issue has gotten worse since tech entrepreneur Elon Musk acquired the service in late 2022 for $44 billion. Many of the guardrails that attempted to quickly dispel such disinformation have been removed, and it was only thanks to more qualified users that the warship was quickly identified. Now in fairness, it is possible that the original post was made in jest, but it is still hard to tell for certain.

Another giveaway that the photo was a fake was that it suggested that CVN-69 was in Souda Bay on the Greek island of Crete. Here is where there was an inkling of truth – notably that the carrier and elements of her strike group did make a port visit to the port earlier this spring. However, anyone with knowledge of geography or access to a map would quickly point out that it would require transiting the Suez Canal and sailing approximately 4,000 nautical miles. It would take days, and perhaps a week for the carrier to reach that point.

Finally, if the warship had taken any damage and needed repairs it would have almost certainly traveled to Camp Lemonnier, the only permanent U.S. military in Africa.

The Pentagon has denied that the carrier took any damage.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit for main image X. All others are Creative Commons. 

The United States has the power to halt ongoing atrocities in El Fasher.

Summary: The success of the D-Day invasion of Normandy was pivotal in World War II, but it almost ended in failure.

-Issues such as missed landing spots, strong currents, and heavy German defenses, especially at Omaha Beach, caused significant casualties and nearly led to the operation's abandonment.

-Had D-Day failed, it would have boosted German morale, potentially shifted Nazi forces to the Eastern Front, and put immense strain on British resources.

-The failure could have prompted significant political repercussions in the U.S., including possible resignations and an election loss for President Roosevelt.

-The failure of D-Day would have dramatically altered the course of world history.

What If D-Day Had Failed? The Potential Consequences for World War II

What if the D-Day invasion of Normandy had failed?

What if U.S. forces had gained no footing in France?

Would the Soviets have been able to defeat Nazi Germany alone? If not, then what would a Nazi-controlled Europe have looked like? And if the Soviets had prevailed, how much of the European continent would they have claimed for themselves?  How far would the Iron Curtain have fallen? 

According to the Department of Defense, D-Day almost was a failure.

“While the ultimate goal of liberating France and ousting the Germans did happen, a lot went wrong on D-Day – especially for the Americans, who were the first to launch the invasion,” the DOD website reads. “Thousands of U.S. paratroopers died during their drop behind enemy lines at Utah Beach, having been shot out of the sky by enemy fire or weighed down and drowned in flooded marshlands. Many also missed their landing spots, as did the seaborne forces, which landed more than a mile from their intended destination, thanks to strong currents.”

Further problems awaited the Allies at Omaha Beach.

“The Omaha offensive turned out to be the bloodiest of the day, largely in part because Army intelligence underestimated the German stronghold there. Rough surf caused huge problems for the amphibious tanks launched at sea; only two of 29 made it to shore, while many of the infantrymen who stormed off the boats were gunned down by Germans. Gen. Omar Bradley, who led the Omaha forces, nearly considered abandoning the operation. Somehow, though, both sectors of U.S. troops managed to advance their positions for overall success.

Historians have spent decades considering what failure on D-Day might have meant.

“Had D-Day failed, it would have been particularly costly for Britain. They were already running out of manpower, particularly the Army,” Professor Gary Sheffield told the BBC. 

“Had D-Day failed, it would have given a major boost to morale in Germany,” Professor Soenke Neitzel added. “The German people had expected this to be the decisive battle, and if they could beat the Allies, they might be able to win the war. I think Hitler would have withdrawn his core division from the West to fight on the Eastern Front.”

In America, failure might have had significant repercussions, too. “Had D-Day failed, there would have been an agonizing reappraisal among the Americans who had pushed for a cross-channel invasion. Eisenhower would almost certainly have offered his resignation; it would almost certainly have had to be accepted. It’s also possible that US President Roosevelt could have lost the November 1944 election, so there could have been a change in administrations,” Professor Dennis Showalter said. 

D-Day was significant. Had the results of D-Day been different, world history would have changed in a big way.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is the Senior Editor with over 1,000 articles published. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.  

All images are Creative Commons. 

After a stinging election setback, the long-ruling party is assessing its coalition options.

How America can prepare for war in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Extreme weather now affects elections all over the world.

Summary: In late April, Ukrainian forces claimed their first strategic bomber kill, reportedly downing a Russian Tu-22M3. This significant loss marks a strategic win for Ukraine in the ongoing conflict.

-The Tu-22M3, designated "Backfire" by NATO, is a supersonic, long-range strategic bomber that has been in service for over five decades.

-Developed during the Cold War, the bomber has seen action in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, and most recently, Ukraine.

-Despite its capabilities, including the ability to launch Kh-32 and Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missiles, the Tu-22M3's numbers are dwindling, highlighting the impact of the conflict on Russia's air force.

Ukrainian Forces Down Russian Tu-22M3 Bomber: A Strategic Win

In late April, Ukrainian forces achieved their first strategic bomber kill in the war against Russia. According to Kyiv, a Russian Tu-22M3 was destroyed for the first time since the invasion commenced back in February 2022. As detailed in a press release, “The enemy aircraft was shot down at a distance of about 300 kilometers from Ukraine. The damaged bomber was able to fly to the Stavropol region of Russia, where it fell and crashed.” The Kremlin also confirmed the destruction of its long-range bomber; however, its Defense Ministry insisted that the aircraft had crashed in a deserted area due to a “technical malfunction.” While both Ukraine and Russia have exaggerated incidents and numbers throughout the invasion, the loss of a Tu-22M3 is significant regardless of how it went down. According to the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, Moscow has lost an estimated number of 340+ airframes so far in the war. As the production line continues to be hindered due to budgetary and resource constraints, every Russian aircraft lost in the conflict is a big win for Ukraine.

Introducing the Tu-22M3 bomber

Designated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as “Backfire,” the Russian Tu-22M supersonic, long-range strategic bomber has remained in service for more than five decades. The aircraft was developed during the Cold War, designed by the USSR to operate in a missile carrier strategic bombing role. When the initial Tu-22 variant was first produced, it suffered from a range of issues that led to the platform’s unserviceability. To rectify these glaring design issues, Soviet engineers got to work on upgraded Tu-22 variants. The M3 models were officially introduced in the 1980s and continued to fly for Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Tu-22M3: Specs, capabilities, and operational history

While the Tu-22M3 in some ways resembles the American-made B-1 Lancer bomber, the Russian platform has far less bomb load capacity. In fact, the Tu-22M3 is virtually a “theatre” bomber designed primarily to strike inside continental Europe. In terms of armaments, the Tu-22M3 can sport the new Kh-32 missile- a heavily modified variant of the Kh-22. Additionally, the bomber is equipped with the subsonic Kh-SD or the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missile. Backfires were deployed in conventional bombing raids in Afghanistan during the 1980s and were again used one decade later in Chechnya and in 2008 against Georgian forces in the South Ossetian War.

Backfires in Ukraine

Throughout Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Backfire has been used to barrage the front lines and support the Kremlin’s offensive war efforts. According to Kyiv officials, the airframe has used KH-22 missiles to launch attacks targeting Ukrainian cities in the past, which is why the destruction of these bombers is key for the country. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated that Russia’s air force possessed a total of fifty-seven Backfires today. However, as the war progresses, this number will likely dwindle further.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin.

All images are from Creative Commons. 

Summary: The Su-25 "Frogfoot," or "Grach," is a subsonic, single-seat, twin-engine jet designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau during the Soviet era.

-It is Russia's counterpart to the American A-10 Warthog, intended for close air support (CAS). However, it is less effective in combat due to its inferior armor and conventional 30mm cannon, which depletes ammunition quickly.

-The Su-25's combat performance has been mixed, performing poorly in conflicts such as the Soviet-Afghan War and the Syrian Civil War.

-The aging fleet and lack of significant upgrades have rendered it less effective in modern combat, as seen in the ongoing Ukraine war, where several Su-25s have been downed by Ukrainian defenses.

Su-25 Frogfoot: Russia's Struggling Close Air Support Jet

The Su-25, fondly known as the “Frogfoot” by its Russian pilots and “Grach” or “rook” by its official name, is a subsonic, single-seat, twin-engine jet warplane that was built by the Sukhoi Design Bureau Joint Stock Company in the Soviet era. It’s the Russian version of the A-10 Warthog, a close air support (CAS) system, but it’s nowhere near as effective in combat as the A-10.

The Frogfoot, like its American counterpart, is a flying tank. Although it has less armor and a bit more speed than the A-10. The Su-25 can climb at the rate of 58m/s and has a maximum speed of about 590 miles per hour. This warbird is by no means the fastest plane in the pack.

But it goes fast enough to allow it to accomplish its CAS mission sets.

Some Specs on the Su-25 Flying Tank

Armed with a Gsh-30-2 30-millimeter cannon under its nose, which can spray 260 rounds of ammunition as well as carry a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles and rockets, the Su-25 has been likened to a Swiss Army Knife. Except, instead of a corkscrew, this bird has a cannon.

Bear in mind, though, one of the main reasons this bird is not as effective in combat as its American rival, the A-10, is because the Russians did not arm the plane with a cannon like the A-10.

The Su-25 is armed with a conventional cannon that will go through its rounds at a fairly fast clip whereas the A-10, with its Gatlin gun and armored cockpit, can loiter over a battlespace and annihilate anything it needs to at close ranges.

The combat record of this bird is mixed, at best.

While it has been effective in certain roles, its effectiveness in modern combat is not that great overall. It performed badly in its maiden conflict, the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s, and it has failed to deliver in subsequent campaigns, such as the Russian intervention in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. Again, this is because of its poor design.

A Close Air Support platform is required to have armor and a cannon that won’t run out of ammo quickly. This allows for the bird to sit atop friendly forces and provide air cover for them in tight combat. But that’s not what the Su-25 Frogfoot can do.

It is at risk of being taken down rather easily (far more so than the A-10) by enemy ground fire. It cannot last as long over a battlespace as can the A-10. And it’s basically a really cheap knock-off of the A-10.

An Aging Fleet and Less Relevant Capability

The aircraft’s aging fleet and lack of significant upgrades over the decades have made it less effective in the modern combat scenarios it has been sent to fight in. The ongoing Ukraine war, for example, has exposed these vulnerabilities in painful detail, leading to significant combat attrition.

As of March of this year, the Ukrainian government announced that at least six Russian Su-25s have been shot down by Ukrainian air defenses (with many more, according to the Ukrainians, expected to be downed over the course of the war).

A Missed Opportunity for the Russian Armed Forces

The Frogfoot is an excellent concept that has not performed as it was expected to. This is because the Russians built the planes on the cheap and have failed to maintain them to make them compatible with the needs of modern warfare, as has been demonstrated both in Russia’s Syrian campaign and the Ukraine War. 

It’s a great idea for the Russians to have CAS, especially considering the missions their government has sent the Russian military on over the last decade. But Russia has executed that good idea badly. The Su-25 is not performing as it should be.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

This is the first time that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will have to work with coalition partners since securing power a decade ago.

Military leaders’ aggressive rhetoric may say more about China’s domestic politics than its position in the Indo-Pacific.

The war in Ukraine is still raging on, with the Russian military on the offensive. The Russian forces are looking to capitalize on their momentum to achieve an operational breakthrough.

On the other side of the sandbox, the Ukrainian military is trying to buy time and stave off Russian forces.

At the same time, it amasses enough troops and resources to launch its own large-scale counteroffensive.

The Situation on the Ground

Overall, there is fighting on three sectors: in the east around Kharkiv, the second-largest city in Ukraine.

In the Donbas, where two sides are fighting it off in more than 10 pockets along the contact line. And in the south, where the fighting isn’t as heavy as in the other sectors.

At this time, the Russian forces have the momentum and are pouring forces on the sectors in search of an operational breakthrough. However, any advances made by both sides are measured in hundreds of yards instead of miles and any breakthrough is still far off.

In the meantime, losses continue to mount.

Russian Casualties in Ukraine

Every day, the Ukrainian military releases an official estimate of the Russian casualties. Although the numbers are approximate, more than two years of combat have shown that Kyiv’s assessments are generally on target.

Over the past 24 hours, the Russian military and pro-Russian rebel forces lost approximately 1,290 men killed, wounded, or captured, 18 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 15 main battle tanks, 67 artillery pieces and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), 69 support vehicles and fuel trucks, 27 unmanned aerial systems, 12 special equipment systems, and 3 air defense weapon systems.

In total, since February 24, 2022, the Ukrainian military claims to have killed, wounded, or captured approximately 512,420 Russian troops and destroyed or damaged 18,228 support vehicles and fuel trucks, 15,020 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 13,345 artillery pieces, 10,766 unmanned aerial systems, 7,794 main battle tanks, 2,268 cruise and ballistic missiles, 2,211 special equipment systems, 1,092 multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), 827 anti-aircraft systems, 357 fighter, attack, and bomber jets, 326 attack and transport helicopters, and 28 surface combatants and submarines.

Although the Ukrainian government might be exaggerating some of these numbers—for example, the U.S. puts the number of Russian losses to around 320,000—it is undeniable that the Russian armed forces have suffered extremely heavy manpower and materiel casualties.

Today, it is estimated that Moscow has around 470,000 troops in Ukraine, showing an impressive ability to recover from extremely heavy losses and regenerate combat power. To be sure, the quality of the Russian troops is low, and their commanders have shown to be largely inept to conduct large-scale maneuver warfare. Moreover, morale among the Russian forces isn’t the best. For example, reports indicate that Russian troops who refuse to fight are forcibly sent to the frontlines instead of going through a court martial.

 But to win in a slugfest like the conflict in Ukraine, quantity might be enough on its own.

About the Author 

Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations and a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ). He holds a BA from the Johns Hopkins University and an MA from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His work has been featured in Business Insider, Sandboxx, and SOFREP.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

Summary: Russia is reportedly allocating funds to equip its new Yasen-M class nuclear submarines with Zircon hypersonic missiles.

-Despite setbacks and losses in its naval fleet during the Ukraine invasion, this move could significantly enhance Russia's naval capabilities.

-The Yasen-class submarines, first conceptualized during the Cold War and updated in the 2000s, are known for their advanced technology and low noise levels.

-With the potential addition of the Zircon missile, capable of reaching Mach 9.0, these submarines could pose a significant threat.

-However, economic challenges due to the ongoing war may hinder the completion of this ambitious project.

Game-Changer: Russian Submarines May Soon Deploy Zircon Hypersonic Missiles

Russia is reportedly allocating funds to equip its new nuclear submarines with hypersonic missiles. 

Last summer, the head of Russia’s largest shipbuilder announced that the Zircon missile will be incorporated on the Yasen-M, the leading class of Russian submarines. Considering how poorly Russia’s naval fleet has fared during the country’s invasion of Ukraine, this capability could be a game-changer for the Kremlin. 

Kyiv claims its forces have sunk or disabled about a third of all Russian warships in the Black Sea since February 2022. In September, Ukraine confirmed it had successfully wrecked Russia’s Rostov-on-Don submarine during a missile attack in occupied Crimea. While the feat is noteworthy, Moscow’s underwater capabilities are still quite formidable, and its subs are arguably far more durable than its surface vessels. The potential introduction of Zircon-carrying Yasen submarines should worry Ukraine and Western officials.

Introducing the Yasen-Class

Russian officials prioritized their inherited fleet of submarines after the Soviet collapse in the 1990s. The Yasen class was first conceptualized during the Cold War, but the lead ship did not complete construction until 1993. The submarine class was conceptualized by Malakhit, a merger of two design bureaus. 

Funding issues halted the Yasen class’ progress, and when Moscow returned to the project in the late 2000s, new technologies had rendered the initial design obsolete. Instead of nixing the project altogether, though, Russian officials opted to relaunch the submarine class under a new “Yasen-M” designation. This new name came with specific design modifications that made the class relevant once more.

The Severondvinsk, the lead ship of the Yasen class, finally commissioned in 2014. The Kazan (K-561) followed suit and was commissioned in 2021, succeeded by the Novosibirsk (K-573) and Krasnoyarsk (K-571). The next boat planned to enter service with the Russian fleet is the Arkhangelsk (K-564). Seven additional submarines could join the class down the line. 

Specs & Capabilities

Each submarine has a submerged displacement of 13,800 tons and can reach a top speed of up to 35 knots. The upgraded variant is shorter, includes enhanced onboard electronics, and runs on a new KTP-6 reactor designed to minimize the submarines’ noise levels. According to reports, the reactor’s cooling loop facilitates a more natural circulation of water that does not require the constant operation of main circulation pumps, which tend to be extremely noisy. The Yasen ships are the first to be equipped with a fourth-generation nuclear reactor, which reportedly has a quarter-century-long core life and will not need refueling.

In terms of armaments, the Yasen submarines are well-equipped. Each submarine features 10 silos for vertically launched cruise missiles, in addition to Kalibr-PL and Oniks cruise missiles. The Kazan is also incorporated on the submarines, which can operate the UKSK (3P-14B) vertical launch system, composed of 8SM-346 modules.

Now, Russian state-run media claims that the submarines will arm the advanced long-range Zircon hypersonic cruise missile. Designated by NATO as SS-N-33, the 3M22 Zircon is perhaps Moscow’s most threatening new weapon. 

According to the Kremlin, the weapon can reach a top speed of Mach 9.0. Alexei Rakhmanov, chief executive officer of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, recently told RIA that, "Multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Yasen-M project will ... be equipped with the Zircon missile system on a regular basis.”

While the prospects of Russia’s Yasen-M submarines being equipped with Zircon missiles is concerning, the economic reality of the venture is murky. After more than two years of war in Ukraine, Moscow’s funds, manufacturing abilities, and other resources are depleted. It is unlikely that Russia has the means to complete this modification while the war rages on. 

If these hypersonic missiles are incorporated onto the Yasen submarines, it will give a huge boost to Russia’s naval strategy.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. 

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary: As of 2024, the vulnerability of U.S. aircraft carriers to China's advanced anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems has become a significant concern.

-These carriers, symbols of U.S. military power, are increasingly at risk from modern warfare technologies.

-The potential loss of a carrier would severely limit U.S. military response options and necessitate a strategic pivot towards developing weapons to counter A2/AD threats.

-The U.S. Navy needs to adapt to these modern warfare dynamics and reconsider its reliance on aircraft carriers as primary assets, focusing instead on more resilient and adaptable platforms like submarines and anti-A2/AD technologies.

Rethinking U.S. Naval Strategy: The Rising Threat to Aircraft Carriers

As of 2024, this prediction seems increasingly plausible. Aircraft carriers, long seen as symbols of US military supremacy, are vulnerable to China's A2/AD systems designed to counteract US power projection. With the US already facing global military challenges and a shift in warfare technology, the loss of an aircraft carrier could limit US military response options and necessitate a strategic pivot towards developing weapons capable of countering A2/AD threats. This scenario underscores the need for the US Navy to adapt to modern warfare dynamics and reconsider its reliance on aircraft carriers as primary assets.

The Vulnerable Giants: Are US Aircraft Carriers Becoming Obsolete in Modern Warfare?

“The only way the US Navy divorces itself from the aircraft carrier cult is if it loses one in combat…which it’s going to, very soon, if things keep going at this rate.” Those prophetic words were spoken to me by a retired US Navy captain (and former neighbor of mine) way back in 2018. Back then, I assumed that he was just being the old codger he’d always presented himself as. 

Now, in 2024, he seems correct in his assessment. 

And what a feather in the cap it’ll be for any Chinese missile battery commander who manages to either sink or disable the flight deck of one of America’s carriers. 

Aircraft Carrier Drama: What is a Flat Top Next to Victory?

The aircraft carrier is, without a doubt, the greatest symbol of US military power to date. Able to travel anywhere on the high seas, making port calls along the way, these floating airbases are continual reminders of the potency—and investment into—military dominance that the US government has made over the years. 

Most of America’s aircraft carrier fleet are comprised of the Nimitz-class, with the new Ford-class being the replacement for these systems (though it remains to be seen if the Navy will actually be able to completely replace the Nimitz-class, due to the costs of the Ford-class carriers).

Whether it is the Nimitz-class or the Ford-class carriers, the fact remains that these systems are the most prominent warship on the high seas today. 

Carrying dozens of potent warplanes, reconnaissance aircraft, and possessing a suite of other important military capabilities, the aircraft carrier is America’s most prominent power projection platform. And since the United States is physically so much farther away from the territories of its rivals, the US military requiresoffensive power projection systems. 

To overcome the threat that America’s flat tops pose to them, the Chinese military has built a stunning array of what’s known as anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weapons. These capabilities are specifically tailored to stunting the power projection potential of US aircraft carriers. Knowing how symbolic these weapons platforms are for the American psyche, as well as how expensive they are, Beijing has surmised that knocking these behemoths out in combat would prove so destructive to any American war effort against China, that Washington might sue for peace with China rather than risk a wider war.

Just How Could the US Retaliate If Its Aircraft Carriers Were Knocked Out?

Many reading this are incredulous about that notion. After all, US aircraft carriers are not only wildly expensive platforms with countless important other equipment aboard, but they are staffed by thousands of American sailors. If China got in a lucky shot and either sank or disabled a flat top, surely the Americans would “bring down the wrath of God” upon the Chinese, just as Uncle Sam did against Japan in the Second World War and against al Qaeda following 9/11. 

In the first case, the United States was a dominant manufacturing power that could truly be the “arsenal of democracy.” Losing ships in combat, as the US did in WWII, was not as catastrophic as today. In the second case, despite the speedy retaliation US forces engaged in after 9/11, ultimately, the United States lost the Global War on Terror. 

Since the War on Terror ended, the United States has found itself mired in a losing war in Ukraine. It is being challenged by petty tyrants from Iran to North Korea to Venezuela. Rag-tag insurgents, like the Houthi Rebels, are holding US power hostage in the Red Sea and Strait of Bab El-Mandeb. 

So, it is not entirely unbelievable that a near-peer competitor, like China, with its superiority in A2/AD systems or hypersonic weapons, could conceivably knock out an American carrier.

Once that sad event occurs, just how would the US retaliate? Would Washington escalate to nuclear warfare? Would they attempt to bomb China directly? 

The point is that, once the carriers are removed as the primary weapon system for the Navy, given how much the Navy has invested in its carriers, there will be both a limit to how the military could respond to a Chinese A2/AD attack as well as a degree of reticence. 

Likely, submarines would have to become a better power projection platform. But the Navy would have to be willing to lose a high number of these in combat. The defense industrial base is already having problems meeting increased demand for more submarines. In a wartime environment, this could be catastrophic. 

The Real Pathway Forward: Build Anti-A2/AD

Clearly, the aircraft carrier has become as useless to modern warfare as the battleship became when the Second World War broke out. Recognizing this problem now, rather than waiting for hostilities to erupt, would be the first necessary step for the Navy to avert the calamity of losing one of its flat tops to China’s A2/AD systems. 

Rather than continuing spending exorbitant sums of tax dollars on a wasting asset, like the aircraft carrier, why not redirect those funds into weapons that can overwhelm the A2/AD capabilities of China? Once those A2/AD systems were neutralized, then, the Navy could bring its flat tops into the fight. 

As it stands now, however, the aircraft carrier is going to get destroyed and usher in America’s defeat by China’s A2/AD.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Shutterstock, 

Building barriers against Russian aggression now can save lives later.

Summary: The U.S. Navy is delaying the construction of its next-generation SSN(X) attack submarine to the 2040s, citing budget constraints and a strained defense industrial base.

-This decision comes alongside cuts to the Virginia-class submarine program, which is already in dire need of increased numbers.

-The Block V Virginia-class, a highly advanced and capable submarine, is argued to be sufficient for current and near-future conflicts, particularly in the challenging littoral zones near China.

-Critics suggest that the Navy should focus on enhancing and expanding its existing Virginia-class fleet rather than investing in the expensive and long-term SSN(X) program, which is seen as less relevant to imminent threats.

The United States Navy is delaying the construction of their next-generation attack submarine. Way back in 2014, the Navy first confirmed that it was working on the SSN(X) stealth attack-class submarine. This was planned as a successor to the Navy’s Virginia-class attack submarine (which is still fairly early in its life cycle). 

In 2021, the Navy’s original plan was to begin building the new attack sub in 2031. That then got pushed back to 2035. Now, as the Navy prepares for a future of constrained budgets and a stretched defense industrial base—with deteriorating shipyards, to boot—the Navy is pushing back this new stealth sub to the 2040s.

Of course, it isn’t only the new SSN(X) stealth attack submarine that is getting a short shrift. The current next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia-class, which is desperately needed in far greater numbers, has been cut year-by-year. Citing budget constraints, the Navy cut its request the build new Virginia-class submarines for fiscal year 2025 from two units to just one. 

So, forget about the glamorous SSN(X). 

The Navy is making all the wrong choices when it comes to preparing itself for the next round of great power conflict at sea.

What’s Wrong the Virginia-Class Block V?

For many, the most recent upgraded version of the Virginia-class attack submarine which has been around since 1998—the Block V variant—is the pinnacle of submarine technology. Many, like this author, question the Navy’s definition of “modernization” if it basically seeks to reinvent the wheel. 

Why not just keep augmenting the Virginia-class submarines, as was done to create the Block V, until the 2040s? Wouldn’t that be cheaper? 

After all, the Block V version of the Virginia-class attack sub is unlike anything else that’s in the water today. Sure, China is developing its own versions. But America still retains technical supremacy over China’s submarine fleet. And the Block V is a key element behind America’s submarine supremacy.

In the case of the Block V Virginia-class versus the SSN(X) prototype, the Navy argues that the SSN(X) is vastly different from the Virginia-class Block V model. My old colleagues at the Congressional Research Service assess that the SSN(X) will, “incorporate the speed and payload of the Navy’s fast and heavily armed Seawolf (SSN-21) class SSN design, the acoustic quietness and sensors of the Virginia-class design, and the operational availability and service life of the Columbia design.” 

Whereas the Virginia-class subs were designed in an era where “multi-mission dominance in the littoral” zones of enemy territory were necessary, according to my colleague Maya Carlin. From the 2020s on, however, most naval experts believe that US submarines will be increasingly challenged by near-peer navies undersea. Evoking Carlin’s assessment again, the new SSN(X) will “carry a greater array of payloads and will be able to perform multi-mission functions with a ‘renewed priority’ in antisubmarine warfare (ASW) mission against threats in large numbers.” 

Of course, this is all just posturing and theorizing. 

What we know for sure is that the Block V will do just fine for the United States—even in the era of increased challenges from near peer rivals, such as China. That’s because the kind of warfare that will likely occur whenever the Sino-American conflict erupts will be waged much closer to the littorals of Asian states than they will be fought in the deep blue sea, where the US Navy still dominates…and where China would not be foolish enough to fight.

No, US submarines will be essential for rolling back a Chinese invasion, or naval blockade, of Taiwan. That will mean operating in the notoriously shallow and difficult South China Sea as well as the tight spaces of the Taiwan Strait. So, a submarine more capable in shallower waters, that can get closer to shore, is preferable for the mission at hand than any theorized great power war in the 2040s or 2050s. 

The Navy Needs to Stop Fantasizing About Future War & Focus on the Current War

The Navy, however, cannot help itself. The fantasists in the bureaucracy want to build systems for some future conflict that has yet to materialize; a conflict that is basically a repeat of the Second World War with slightly better technology and with mostly different actors. 

But this is flawed thinking. And it certainly is not strategic. 

If there is to be a war with China over Taiwan, it will likely be fought between now and 2025. Therefore, the Navy needs to shelve its plans for the expensive SSN(X) and redirect its precious funds into building more Block Virginia-class submarines and maybe modernizing the existing batch of Los Angeles-class submarines, too. It will be the current crop of US submarines, not some fantastical prototype, that will decide the outcome of the undersea war.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, as well as at American Greatness and the Asia Times. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower (Republic Book Publishers), Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

For strategic reasons, Russia has openly or tacitly supported separatist or Eurosceptic movements in Europe (whether the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” from the EU, Scottish independence, or Catalan separatism) to weaken the unity of its rivals. Of course, for the same reasons, it does not accept similar withdrawals of its neighbors, the former Soviet republics, from Russia’s Eurasian sphere of influence and the multilateral organizations that bind it together. Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin both manufactured and sustained conflicts to maintain their influence in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine and prevent them from joining the West.

Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan has announced that he supports European integration. “Many new opportunities are largely being discussed in Armenia nowadays and it will not be a secret if I say that includes membership in the European Union,” Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan said. To join the EU would require an “Armexit” from the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), as no country can belong to two customs unions.

Pashinyan has not been critical of the EEU, unlike his condemnations of the Russian-led CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation), from which he is also threatening to withdraw. Pashinyan has made no mention of replacing the CSTO with an aspiration to join NATO. Nevertheless, the Kremlin no longer views the EU and NATO as separate entities. Russian officials and media have strongly condemned the European Union mission in Armenia, which was established in January 2023, seeing it as the thin edge of the country moving into the EU, thereby establishing a de facto security relationship with Europe and the United States. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov claimed the EU mission in Armenia is “turning into a NATO mission.” 

The Kremlin warned Armenia that it could not survive without Russia. RT (formerly Russia Today) head Margarita Simonyan, who is herself Armenian but a fervent Putin supporter, accused Pashinyan of betraying Armenia “for a meager pension.”

Russia controls Armenia’s energy sector. 850,000 Armenians live as migrant laborers in Russia, almost a third of the population of Armenia. Their large remittances are a significant contribution to the country’s economy.

Since Pashinyan came to power in a color revolution in 2018, he has talked up European integration while increasing economic cooperation and trade with Russia. Armenian-Russian trade is growing, not declining. Armenia is a major re-exporter of Western goods to Russia, breaking sanctions imposed by the West in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine. To prevent the United States from imposing sanctions against Armenia, the Armenian Central Bank has banned Armenian banks from using the Russian “Mir” national repayment system.

Pashinyan blames Russia for not militarily intervening in support of Armenia during the 2020 Second Karabakh War with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan also condemned Russia’s so-called “peacekeepers” for not protecting the Karabakh separatist enclave in 2023.

Pashinyan has frozen Armenia’s CSTO membership and is no longer contributing to its budget. Armenian officials have also raised the possibility of Armenia withdrawing from the CSTO, drawing a barrage of Russian threats.

Pashinyan has demanded Russia withdraw Russian border guards from Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan and its international borders. Armenia is considering whether to ask Russia to close its military base in Gyumri, which would be far more provocative. The base resulted from a 1995 agreement between Moscow and Yerevan and was renewed by a 2010 protocol, extending the lease until 2044. Pashinyan would have immense difficulty unilaterally closing the Russian military base.

Relations with Russia are a domestic football. Military defeat has eroded the support base of the opposition from the so-called “Karabakh clan” who ran Armenia for most of its independence since 1991. The Kremlin would ideally like to replace Pashinyan with a pro-Russian regime like what existed prior to 2018. Russia supports the pro-Russian Armenian Apostolic Church, whose Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan calls for Pashinyan’s resignation. Russia’s media, which continues to have a large audience in Armenia, has supported the demands for Pashinyan’s ouster, blaming him for Armenia’s military defeats in 2020 and 2023. 

The Kremlin was always suspicious of color revolutions, believing them to be CIA-orchestrated conspiracies against Russia. Consequently, Russian media have spread conspiratorial claims that Pashinyan was brought to power by “globalist” forces and has since then “obediently implement[ed] their programs.” Armenia was allegedly being dragged into the EU by masonic lodges, which are “the real master of the entire European Union.” On March 24, Armenia blocked two TV shows by Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov and ended the agreement to re-transmit Russian television broadcasts to Armenia the following month.

Pashinyan said it had been a mistake for Armenia to rely solely on Russia since 1991. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded by saying Russia would be forced to revise its relations with Armenia as it is aligning with “Russia’s enemies.” Pashinyan did not attend Putin’s May 7 inauguration. In turn, Lavrov accused Armenian leaders of defaming Russian border guards, Russian military personnel at its base in Gyumri, and the CSTO.

Pashinyan’s rhetoric on European integration will not lead to anything concrete because a hyper-nationalistic and imperialistic Kremlin will never allow an Armexit. The West is foolishly encouraging Armenia’s withdrawal while ignoring the possible severity of Russia’s response. As seen in Ukraine, Putin will fight long and hard to keep his neighbors from asserting their independence from Russian control.

Taras Kuzio is a Professor of Political Science at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy and author of Fascism and Genocide: Russia’s War Against Ukrainians (Columbia University Press, 2023).

Image: Asatur Yesayants / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary: The BRICS bloc, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is gradually emerging as a significant economic and financial trading alliance, challenging the U.S.-dominated global economic order. Historically, the U.S. has maintained its economic dominance through its central role in international trade, its status as a net creditor post-World Wars, and the U.S. dollar's position as the primary reserve currency. However, recent geopolitical and economic developments, such as Russia's resilience to Western sanctions and the U.S.'s economic turbulence post-COVID-19, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of the U.S. economy. The rising national debt and deficits further compound these challenges. As BRICS grows in influence, it poses a potential threat to the U.S. dollar's dominance, which could have severe implications for America's economic stability and global standing.

Rising National Debt: America's Achilles' Heel in the Face of BRICS

In the 2012 film Prometheus, a prequel to Ridley Scott’s 1979 hit Alien, one of the lead characters, Michael Fassbender, looks upon an embryo of the iconic monster and quips, “Big things have small beginnings.” 

One could say the same thing about the rising economic and financial trading bloc, loosely known as the BRICS bloc. 

BRICS is short for “Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.” The term can find its roots in a 2001 Goldman Sachs report about the economy of the developing world. Many in the West have attacked the term and the very notion that this budding economic alliance is anything but a gigantic show for the leaders of those countries to look like statesmen.

Yet, just as with the embryonic alien monster in Prometheus, the BRICS bloc has moved from a mere theory in the minds of turn-of-the-21st-century Wall Streeters and is slowly growing into a financial dagger aimed at the heart of the U.S.-led economic system. 

America is the Beating Heart of the Global Economy

Americans secured a position at the center of international trade by the middle of the twentieth century. 

After the First World War, the United States became a net creditor for the rest of the depleted world’s powers. Again, by the end of the Second World War, as Peter Hitchens documents in his masterful book The Phoney Victory: The World War II Illusion, Washington had spent much time erasing the British Empire’s once-dominant position atop the world economy.

From there, the United States ensured its continued economic dominance throughout the twentieth century by isolating and containing its chief rival in the Cold War, the Soviet Union. Economically cut off from the rest of the world and made into a giant pariah, the USSR could not compete in the long run with the Americans. Further, during this time, the United States ensured that its currency became the primary reserve currency. 

And, because oil was traded on the U.S. dollar, the American currency was empowered even more than it already was. Since the Federal Reserve was able to print its own money whenever it needed to, which it always did, the U.S. could finance itself in ways no other nation in the world could. 

It didn’t hurt that the United States was the only industrialized economy still standing after World War II. As the rest of the world was getting back on its feet, the U.S. was 15-20 years ahead of its potential economic competition. 

All these factors created a positive feedback loop ensuring that, so long as the United States remained the dominant economic power in the world system, deficits would not matter. We could spend as profligately as we wanted. Washington could also employ its powerful spot atop the world financial system to craft devastating financial weapons, such as sanctions, to harm countries with which it has problems. 

The U.S. foreign policy establishment got used to this. Sanctions against rogue regimes like Venezuela or Iran or North Korea, have been proven to be useful. The thinking in Washington was to use our economic leverage to impoverish our rivals, rather than risk direct warfare with them. 

The Folly of Washington Abusing America’s Economic Dominance

Yet the usefulness of sanctions over time has rightly been questioned. 

Washington got it into its mind that it could sanction fellow great powers, such as Russia. Indeed, this is precisely what Washington has done since the Russians illegally invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Things only worsened for Russia after they invaded Ukraine in 2022. But something unexpected happened. After the initial shock of Western sanctions wore off, the Russian economy not only survived, but it started to thrive, even in the face of American sanctions.

At the same time, the U.S. economy is going through its own turbulence. COVID-19 and the subsequent global lockdowns shattered what turned out to be brittle supply chains. What’s more, both the Trump and Biden Administrations engaged in the most irresponsible level of deficit spending in the history of America, first to combat the economic downturn caused by the lockdowns, then to stimulate the ailing economy (it didn’t work). 

As a result, inflation skyrocketed, as did interest rates. The price of everything became unaffordable. Average, middle-class Americans—the backbone of the American economy—are in dire straits after four years of this. 

Looking on at these trends, the rest of the world, notably the Global South, began thinking that there was no way that the U.S. economy could go on. Russia and China, feeling threatened by the American willingness to use their economic leverage with such wanton abandon, not only against rogue states, but against fellow great powers, have taken to forming the BRICS into something more than just a cool-sounding acronym. 

Don’t Doubt the Challenge from the Developing World

Naysayers in the West argue that no matter what, a Sino-Russian-led BRICS coalition could never challenge the U.S.-dominated economic order.

But the U.S. economy doesn’t look strong. Plus, many other countries in the Global South are worried that the weaponized dollar could be used against them, and they are looking for a hedge against that.

And here is why the U.S. national debt and its out-of-control deficits matter. 

With a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, $35 trillion in overall debt, and $1 trillion in interest payments this year, if the U.S. dollar is no longer the primary global reserve currency and there is suddenly a true rival to the U.S. currency, then the entire American financial system comes crashing down.

The ultimate victory for China, Russia, and so many of America’s other enemies would be to kneecap the U.S. economy by sweeping away the U.S. dollar’s dominance. Once the U.S. dollar is knocked off its pedestal, over time, printing and spending its own money to get through each fiscal year becomes impossible. 

The Debt is a National Security Crisis-in-Waiting

U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen famously quipped that the country’s national debt is the greatest national security threat America faces. He was correct. 

By carrying the debt load that the United States has been carrying—and constantly piling more—all while using the dollar’s dominant position as a cudgel against other great powers, Washington has set the conditions to turn the small BRICS bloc into something truly monstrous over the next several decades. 

Once that happens, life in the United States becomes very bleak quickly and America goes from a superpower to a middle power in terminal decline overnight. Those are the stakes as the Sino-Russian-led BRICS economic bloc slowly arises.

About the Author

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Centrists seem increasingly willing to partner with the far right.

Summary: The T-90M Main Battle Tank (MBT), once heralded as "Russia’s most advanced armored vehicle," is struggling in Ukraine.

-Initially expected to dominate, the T-90M has faced significant losses, highlighting the vulnerabilities of modern tanks in contemporary warfare.

-Russia has lost nearly 100 T-90M tanks, exposing the limitations of even the most advanced models against Ukraine's effective use of drones and NATO-provided anti-tank weapons.

-This situation underscores the need for military adaptation to new combat realities.

-The T-90M's performance illustrates that advanced technology alone is insufficient without updated strategies and tactics suited to the modern battlefield.

Russia’s T-90M Tanks Struggle in Ukraine’s Modern Warfare

There’s an old adage which goes, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall,” one could ascribe this notion to Russia’s T-90M Main Battle Tank (MBT). At one time, it was dubbed as “Russia’s most advanced armored vehicle.” Now, it is struggling to hold its own in the killing fields of Ukraine. This armored beast was supposed to be the top-of-the-line MBT deployed to Ukraine. 

Its presence alone would send the Ukrainians scattering. It has not performed as expected in Ukraine.

A Growing Problem for Modern Militaries 

In fact, its mixed performance in combat highlights why the even more sophisticated Russian MBT, the T-14 Armata, has been kept in reserve for the duration of the war. It further explains why the Russians have preferred to rely on their decades-old Soviet-era MBT, the T-72. The old T-72s are cheap and easy to mass-produce. If they’re lost, it’s not as detrimental to the Russian Armed Forces as would be losing large numbers of the T-90M or the T-14 Armata. 

Known as the Proryv-3, the T-90M entered service with great fanfare. It has now received less laudatory publicity because of its mixed record in combat. The T-90M was seen as not only an upgrade from the original T-90 MBT but as a significant step up from the legendary T-72. The new T-90M has a 125mm 2A46M-4 smoothbore gun, it is able to fire missiles at enemy tanks at a distance of up to three miles away, as well as deploying standard ammunition. 

Since the beginning of the Ukraine War, however, the Russians have lost almost 100 of these advanced tanks. Russia has visually confirmed 97 T-90 losses, with the more advanced T-90M making up a significant portion of these losses. This suggests that the T-90M, despite its advanced features, is not as invincible as the Russians thought it was. 

It also highlights an ongoing issue that both the Russian and US militaries have yet to fully acknowledge and adapt to: the changing nature of warfare. 

T-90M Tank and the Failure to Adapt 

For example, the reason that so many Russian tanks have been lost is, in part, because of Ukraine’s robust drone fleet and the NATO-provided anti-tank weapons, such as the Javelin. Drones have completely changed the dynamic of modern combat. And this is a reality that is apparently lost on many war planners today in the capitals of the great military powers.

The T-90M is another example of pride. 

You see, like the Americans with their aircraft carriers, the T-90M was viewed as a symbol of Russian military power. It was an example that Russians used when seeking to convince themselves—and the world—that Russia had recovered from the doldrums of the post-Soviet era. And because the T-90M has had a mixed record (not great, not terrible, as the meme goes), it has embarrassed the Russians. 

In the end, the T-90Ms mediocre performance in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder that no matter how advanced a weapon is, it is only as good as the strategy, tactics, and realities on the ground in warfare. The realities on the ground in Ukraine is that the terrain is difficult for certain tanks to operate. 

Because of the presence of large drone swarms in the war, as well as effective anti-tank weapons, many of the strategies need to be updated (and, therefore, the platforms and the way they’re used must be fundamentally changed). Failure to adapt has led to the wanton destruction of systems, such as the T-90M, once assumed to be so advanced they would crush all who opposed them.

The T-90M is not a total failure. It just isn’t necessarily worth the hype or the investment. 

About the Author 

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.