Diplomacy & Crisis News

Summary: The U.S. Army's new M10 Booker, designed to support mechanized brigades, resembles a miniaturized M1 Abrams but with a 105mm cannon and lighter armor.

-Unlike the Abrams, the Booker can be quickly deployed via C-17 transport planes without disassembly.

-It aims to enhance mobility and protection for light infantry units, despite not being classified as a light tank.

-Critics argue the Booker may struggle in modern combat scenarios like Ukraine, where light tanks have been ineffective against powerful Russian anti-tank weapons.

The US Army has a new 'tank'…but don’t you dare call it a tank. And it’s something more than an armored personnel carrier. In fact, like most tanks, the new tank, designated the M10 Booker, does not carry personnel other than the crew at all. What’s more, the Booker appears to be a miniaturized version of the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT). 

According to the US Army the Booker will “add firepower and maneuverability to the Army’s mechanized brigades.”

Its smaller size does not mean it will not pack a punch. The size of the Booker simply helps to keep maintenance costs down (in terms of maintenance costs, size really does matter). Possessing a 105mm cannon (compared to the Abrams’ 120 mm cannon), with lighter armor than the Abrams, the Booker is not just like its older, bigger brother. 

However, the Army is quite pleased with the product and hopeful about its effectiveness in future combat missions.

That, by the way, should give most readers pause. The M10 Booker, unlike the Abrams, was designed to easily fit onto a C-17 Globemaster III transport plane without having to be disassembled. The Abrams can certainly fit on a C-17. Unfortunately, the M1 Abrams is so large only one can fit on a massive C-17 and it must be partly disassembled to fit. The Booker, on the other hand, can fit two units to a C-17 and can be easily rolled-on-and-rolled-off the aircraft intact.

Nonetheless, what should we make of the M10 Booker? Does it make sense to acquire this new 'tank' with so many other budgetary demands coming out of the U.S. military these days? 

The specific purpose of this non-tank-tank is to support light infantry units that are in the midst of combat operations. Rather than having to wait for an M1 Abrams to be reassembled back at an airbase and then deployed to the frontline to support infantry on the move, the M10 Booker can move quickly to targets on the front. The point with these systems would be to ensure mobility while protecting light infantry forces.  

The Army’s leadership has insisted that the M10 Booker is not a “light tank,” as some in the press have described it. US Army General Glenn Dean explained to the Military Times that the M10 Booker is not a light tank because “the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle. It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].”

But, as Davis Winkie of the Military Times opined, “Stop gaslighting us. It’s a damn tank.”

A more interesting query would be to find out what kind of a tank it is. Obviously, it is not an MBT on the order of the M1 Abrams. And the level of armor, plus the fact that it is not designed to do recon missions, indicates that this vehicle is not, in fact, a light tank. It’s more akin to a medium tank. The M551 Sheridan was the Cold War equivalent to the M10 Booker (although the Army classified that vehicle as a light tank). Although, the Sheridans could be parachuted into combat. But as one former Army tanker I chatted with recently claimed, “The Booker is light enough that they’ll probably be able to parachute it into combat eventually.” 

The Army says that the first M10 Booker was scheduled to be deployed by the Army in February of this year. Each unit costs around $12 million, roughly half the cost of the M1 Abrams tank. The Army has spent a total of $257 million on the M10 Booker program. 

The real question is, though, will it be effective in protecting infantry? 

The Army says that they incorporated many lessons learned from the battlefields in Ukraine. Well, one of the lessons learned should have been that light tanks are not very effective in the kind of combat that is occurring in Ukraine. While antiquated, the French flooded the Ukrainian Army with their AMX-10RC light tanks. All these platforms did was get a lot of good Ukrainians killed. They were deemed “unsuitable” for combat by the Ukrainians. Basically, Russian anti-tank weapons and more powerful Russian tanks kept blasting through the French light tanks.

The Booker tanks, like all light or light, or in this case, “medium” tanks (to keep the nitpickers in the Army’s leadership happy) appear to be missing the fundamental point about tanks. The entire purpose is to get firepower to the frontlines and punch through enemy formations. An 105mm gun and light armor will not achieve this, no matter how new or fancy the M10 Booker appears to be. Yes, it is a tank. No, it is not the kind of tank that one fighting a modern war against a near-peer rival would need. 

Part of the problem is that the acquisition system in the United States Department of Defense is completely broken. It’s untethered from reality and reflects political preferences rather than battlefield needs. Infantry needs to be mobile, and they need maneuverable vehicles supporting them. But they also need tanks—which is what the M10 Booker is, no matter how hard the Army wants to say otherwise—that can pack a wallop and that won’t be blasted to smithereens because of weak armor and a small gun.

The Booker tank is the wrong vehicle for the wrong kind of war.

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.

Summary: India is reducing its dependence on Russian arms due to Russia’s diminished export capacity amid the Russo-Ukraine War.

-This shift may benefit the U.S., with which India is strengthening defense ties.

-However, India must balance this with maintaining good relations with Russia to avoid pushing Moscow closer to China.

-India aims to bolster domestic production and has sought arms deals with the U.S. and France, while still relying on Russian oil.

India is cutting its dependence on Russian arms sales. The move away from Moscow comes as Russia’s capacity to export arms is reduced on account of the Russo-Ukraine War. 

But India will be forced to maintain cordial relations with Russia, lest it push the Kremlin’s leader, President Vladimir Putin, toward India’s greatest rival, China. 

India’s pivot away from Russia is a significant blow for Putin’s regime. India is the world’s biggest arms importer, and in an effort to compensate, India will likely turn to the United States, one of Russia’s chief rivals. 

“We are not likely to sign any major military deal with Russia,” Nandan Unnikrishnan of the New Delhi think tank Observer Research Foundation said, Reuters reported. “That would be a red line for Washington.”

The United States will hope to pick up a portion of the business India withholds from Russia. India purchased more than $60 billion of weapons from Russia over the last two decades alone.

Russia recognizes the importance of the Indian partnership and has maintained pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Russia has recently solicited India to buy Kamov helicopters, Sukhoi jets, and MiG jets. Modi has resisted, however, focusing instead on increasing domestic production with the aid of Western technology.

“Such efforts would better fit Modi’s ‘Make in India’ programme to encourage domestic manufacturing, as he makes a rare bid for a third term in general elections,” according to Reuters. “India expects to spend nearly $100 billion on defence orders over the next decade.”

In addition to purchases from the United States, India has courted France for fighter jet purchases. India also has designs on co-building submarines with a European nation.

The United States has been working to strengthen ties in the Indo-Pacific in an effort to counter China’s rise. As such, India is of outsized strategic importance to the United States. And India, bitter rivals of China, is similarly interested in protecting against Chinese President Xi Jinping’s increasingly assertive and increasingly capable military.

Collaboration between the U.S. and India on weapons sales and development has already begun. In 2023, the two nations signed a deal for General Electric to produce jet engines in India for use with Indian-made fighter jets. The deal represents the first time the U.S. will allow its jet engines to be made abroad with a non-ally.

Further collaboration is expected in “areas ranging from air combat to intelligence,” Reuters reported. 

Although India intends to strengthen ties with the United States, it must simultaneously avoid alienating Russia – easier said than done, given the rivalry between Washington and Moscow.

While India seeks arms imports from another source, the country still counts on Russia for oil.  

India needs to maintain oil purchases from Russia to “keep [Russia] as far away as possible from China,” Unnikrishnan told Reuters.

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. 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.

Summary: The Nimitz-class supercarrier USS George Washington (CVN-73) will soon replace USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) as the U.S. Navy's forward-deployed aircraft carrier. This will be the fourth Navy vessel named after the founding father. The most notable namesake was USS George Washington (SSBN-598), the first ballistic missile submarine. Originally an attack submarine, it was modified to carry Polaris missiles and became a key component of the U.S. nuclear triad, conducting numerous deterrent patrols during the Cold War.

The Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington (CVN-73) will soon serve as the U.S. Navy's forward-deployed aircraft carrier, relieving her sister warship USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) in the role. 

CVN-73, the sixth Nimitz-class carrier, is the fourth Navy vessel named to honor the founding father. Previous holders of the name include an 18th-century frigate and a converted German ocean liner seized by the U.S. during the First World War.

But it was the third vessel named for the nation's first president that left the most important mark on the history of the Navy.

USS George Washington (SSBN-598) was the first ballistic missile carrier in the U.S. Navy, but she was not a purpose-built SSBN. Originally laid down as the nuclear-powered fast attack submarine USS Scorpion (SSN-589), construction was halted and the boat was cut in half, with a 39.6 meter (130 foot) missile compartment added to accommodate the Polaris ballistic missile.

The Federation of American Scientists described the submarine’s impact: "With its entry into service in December 1959 the United States instantly gained the most powerful deterrent force imaginable – a stealth platform with enormous nuclear firepower."

SSBN-598 emerged from the Electric Boat Company yards in June 1960 as the lead boat of a new class of ballistic missile submarines. It sailed to Cape Canaveral, Florida, to be armed with two UGM-27 Polaris two-stage, solid-propellant missiles. The nuclear-powered boat proceeded to the U.S. Atlantic Missile Test Range with officials from the Polaris Submarine program, and on July 20, 1960, it completed the first Polaris missile launch from a submerged submarine.

Although the missile was unarmed, it was a historic moment that was confirmed in a message from the boat's captain, Commander James Osborn, to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It read, "Polaris from out of the deep to target. Perfect."

A second missile was launched an hour later, traveling 1,770 km (1,100 miles) down the firing range, where it struck the target area. The tests were duplicated two weeks later before USS George Washington traveled to Charleston to take on board her full load of 16 Polaris missiles. After receiving those missiles, the single submarine carried ordnance that was more powerful than all the bombs dropped during the entire Second World War.

SSBN-598 completed her first armed patrol after 66 days on January 21, 1961. It marked the beginning of her service as part of the U.S. nuclear triad. Beginning later that year, the submarine conducted an untold number of classified deterrent patrols near the Soviet coastline, rotating with two crews. Within just a handful of years, USS George Washington had traveled more than 100,000 miles.

The warship received an overhaul in 1965 and remained in service for another 20 years. While she was the first submarine to carry a nuclear-armed ballistic missile, it should be noted that the boat's motto was "First in Peace."

The third vessel named to honor the Revolutionary War general and the nation's first president was decommissioned in January 1985. Only her conning tower was saved, and it is now on display at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut.

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: The Italian Navy's flagship aircraft carrier, ITS Cavour, has departed for its first Indo-Pacific deployment, including visits to Australia and Japan.

-It marks the first port call by the Italian flagship to Japan. The deployment will involve joint training exercises with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) on operating the F-35B Lightning II fighters.

-Italy's carrier has three F-35Bs, with more expected to join.

-The JMSDF is also preparing its Izumo-class ships for F-35B operations, enhancing Japan's naval capabilities against China's expansion.

Italy and Japan were allied in both world wars, and today remain key partners. That fact was on display on Saturday as the Italian Navy's flagship aircraft carrier ITS Cavour departed her home port of Taranto in southern Italy for her first deployment to the Indo-Pacific. The flattop, which was commissioned in 2008 and can carry a dozen rotary aircraft or eight fixed-wing fighters, is scheduled to visit Australia and then will head to Japan in August.

It will mark the first-ever port call by the Italian flagship to Japan, and the most recent deployment of a European aircraft carrier to the region, following those of the UK and France.

Last July, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) announced that it would conduct training exercises with the Italian Navy on the operation of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lighting II, the short/vertical takeoff and landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. The Italian Navy currently operates the fifth-generation multirole stealth fighter.

In early 2021, the Italian carrier took part in training exercises with the United States Navy from Naval Air Station Patuxent River (NAS Pax River), Maryland. Italy is a Level II partner on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with the Italian Air Force first taking delivery of the Lightning II in 2016, while the Italian Navy received its first F-35Bs in 2020. The Italian sea service has three of a planned 15 now in service, and it is likely all of those aircraft will accompany ITS Cavour on her Indo-Pacific deployment.

Moreover, while in the waters of Japan, it is likely the flight deck could get a bit more crowded. The JMSDF currently expects to receive its first batch of F-35Bs this year, in advance of carrier operations.

Both Tokyo and Rome will likely welcome any joint operations involving the F-35B. The Italian would likely see how its carrier can operate with additional aircraft from the flight deck of its flagship, while the JMSDF is seeing its two Izumo-class helicopters being converted to true aircraft carriers that can operate the Lightning II.

Both JS Izumo and JS Kaga have been undergoing major modifications that will allow the 800-foot (248-meter) long vessels to become the first carriers operated by the island nation since the Second World War. In August 2013, Japanese officials announced that the two helicopter destroyers would be modified for use in national defense – notably to confront China's naval expansion in the Indo-Pacific.

As previously reported, the Japanese military confirmed that the Izumo-class was designed with the possibility of operating such fixed-wing aircraft. Yet, that fact was not made public as Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which was adopted after World War II, prohibited Japan from possessing offensive military weapons including aircraft carriers.

Japan is now turning to an old and faithful ally to help it prepare for carrier operations again.

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.

Ruben Vardanyan, an Armenian businessman, and former Minister of State of the Karabakh region is sitting in an Azerbaijani prison, where a trial is underway against him in Azerbaijan.  He also faces charges from the state of Ukraine since he was arrested on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. Some people are not familiar with Vardanyan’s political and criminal actions and therefore do not understand why a man who is considered a philanthropist, a politician who returned to his native country and shows concern for his people is sitting in prison under conditions that can be difficult. But Vardanyan deserves a long prison term for the actions he did when he roamed the earth freely.  

In his youth, Vardanyan studied economics and even served in the Soviet army in the regions of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Vardanyan is Armenian by origin but lived for many years in Russia. After graduating, Vardanyan slowly began to enter the field of financial investments. But Vardanyan was not satisfied with his money and began to profit illegally from trading and investing in the capital market, or using less official language – he began to launder money.

It is important to note that today Vadanyan’s business companies (or those owned or managed by him in the past) are subject to Western economic sanctions. This is how Vardanyan managed to get rich at a very high level until eventually, he entered Russian politics. He was involved mainly in government financial management committees (it’s not just junior committees, but committees that affect the Russian economy) and the Russian Industrialists’ forum. With the help of Vardanyan’s fortune, he was able to advance in his public positions in Russia, until finally, he was able to enter the limited circle of close associates of the President of Russia – Vladimir Putin.

Vardanyan is considered one of the richest people in Russia and his money has done Putin a great service. With the help of Vardanyan’s huge fortune, he used to take care of laundering money for Putin and his close people, according to their demands and needs. Money laundering was so associated with him that Vardanyan’s nickname became “Putin’s wallet”, indicating the huge amount of money that passed between these two men.  

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused the beginning of Western pressure on Russia and Putin’s regime, Vardanyan realized that it was not safe for him to stay in Russia, so he left the country where he became rich and renounced his Russian citizenship. The reason for this is a move to escape the Western sanctions imposed on the senior officials of the Russian regime after the invasion of Ukraine.

Vardanyan is probably the oligarch with the most luck, or with good friends in the West because most of the oligarchs and rich people who renounced their Russian citizenship and fled Russia after the war started lost their assets, businesses, and bank accounts connected to the land of Russia. The reason for this is of course the Western sanctions designed to delay and slow down Putin’s men.

Ruben Vardanyan kept his fortune from the West. After escaping from Russia he returned to his homeland Armenia and after declaring many times over the years that he had no political ambitions, he entered Armenian politics. On top of that, he even declared a dream to run for the country’s presidency. Vardanyan was appointed Minister of State in the separatist government in Karabakh, although his only connection to the politically and sovereignly disputed land is the fact that Vardanyan is of Armenian descent and holds Armenian citizenship. Later the motive for this political move was discovered, and it is the Kremlin from Moscow. Vardanyan was sent to Armenia to be Putin’s Russian branch in the region, to direct Armenia’s political policy to Putin’s needs.  

As mentioned, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the West imposed economic sanctions against Putin’s Russian regime, including blocking trade routes of essential products which also include weapons. Therefore, Russia had to find a way to transfer to its territory the weapons products it needed for the war, without being exposed to the eyes of the West. For this, Vardanyan was sent to Armenia, which turns out to be a major exporter of essential chips for advanced weapons, exactly what Russia lacked after the imposition of sanctions.

It seems that Vardanyan has entered with all his might into the Russian-Iranian-Armenian axis, where he works behind the scenes for his master in the Kremlin. Iran supplies Russia with suicide drones, Armenia supplies Russia with essential chips for advanced weapons, and transports through its territory the weapons that the Iranians send to Russia. Without Vardanyan, this entire logistical system would not exist and work as efficiently as it does these days. Vardanyan has an active part in the destruction that is happening to Ukraine and its citizens Since the Russian invasion, Vardanyan has faced accusations in Ukraine and the state institutions want him to be in prison for his actions against the country.

But Vardanyan was actually arrested by the Azerbaijani military forces at the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia after he tried to escape from Karabakh to the territory of sovereign Armenia. Azerbaijan accuses Vardanyan of sabotaging the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia, crossing the border illegally, financing terrorism and personally dealing with Armenian terrorism directed towards Azerbaijan.

According to evidence, Vardanyan used to cross the border of Karabakh (the province is considered Azerbaijani territory from an international legal point of view) illegally to supply separatist gangs with money and ammunition to be used against the Azerbaijani army. The amount of weapons that the Armenian separatists received from Vardanyan is so great that to this day they continue to find the weapons he donated to them. Vardanyan never denied these claims, and even more so. More than once Vardanyan has been caught threatening the Azerbaijani government, asserting the rights of the Armenians and presenting views that even Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claims are extreme.

Vardanyan openly glorified the Armenian terrorists who carried out Operation Nemesis, in which many senior Azerbaijani officials were murdered, and also threatened: “Anything can happen to the government of Azerbaijan.” As mentioned, Vardanyan served as Minister of State of the separatist government in Karabakh, but four months after his appointment in Armenia they gave in to the Azerbaijani demand to fire him. The demand was part of Azerbaijan’s list of demands to end the siege of the Armenian enclave in Karabakh, so he was dismissed from his post but vowed to remain living and working in the region.    

Vardanyan is a dangerous man, extremist in his nationalist views, funds terrorism, belongs to the circle of dark people, you can call him “one of the enemies of the West” and a financial criminal in addition to everything. This is a man the people of the world should be glad is behind bars, where he should stay.

In 2017, the Russia-based Institute for Prospective Military Studies dedicated its annual award to a military engineer for designing a “non-lethal acoustic weapon suitable for use in urban combat.” This engineer was also a high-ranking member of Russia’s main intelligence directorate, the GRU, specifically its clandestine sabotage and assassination unit 29155. Following this accolade, President Putin promoted this individual as his representative in a Far Eastern province, a rare honor generally reserved for agents after they achieve a major “success” in kinetic covert operations. Putin originally founded the Institute for Prospective Military Studies in 2013 to develop “weapons based on new physical properties including ray weapons and wave weapons.” Within a couple of years, American diplomatic, military, and intelligence officials started falling ill under mysterious circumstances at home and abroad.

Most people know this phenomenon as Havana Syndrome, scientifically termed anomalous health incidents (AHIs). The issue first entered the spotlight in 2016 when CIA personnel stationed in America’s embassy in Havana started reporting intense headaches, ringing in the ears, and fatigue. Since then, over 1,000 incidents have emerged on every continent. In addition to the aforementioned symptoms, victims have suffered dizziness, vertigo, nausea, and cognitive difficulties, with some experiencing rare cancers, heart conditions, and, unfortunately, death.

Conclusive evidence has never emerged, and possible explanations have ranged from work-related duress to mass psychogenic illness (Epidemic hysteria) or even the sounds made by crickets. At a recent congressional hearing on AHIs, however, one of the witnesses noted their study indicated at least 68 of the incidents cannot be explained by pre-existing conditions or psychosomatic symptoms. They affirmed that the aggregate scientific, intelligence, and medical evidence substantiates claims that these AHIs are the result of a foreign adversary. More specifically, the reported symptoms are consistent with “wave weapons.” As the witnesses see it, Russia is this foreign adversary.

Russia has a long-running R&D program on acoustic and electromagnetic directed-energy emission devices used for lethal and non-lethal purposes. During the Moscow Signal incident of the Cold War, around 350 American embassy employees in Moscow experienced symptoms similar to those today between 1953 and 1976. While most information regarding AHIs remains strictly confidential, declassified documents show that  Soviet intelligence aimed microwave radiation at the U.S. embassy, detected through frequency bands.

The recent congressional testimonies by individuals with top-secret security clearances suggest a similar pattern of events today. They charge that high-powered microwave systems are bathing the living quarters of American officials to gradually induce auditory and sensory-motor impairments. Such methods are covert and leave little trace. The last two years have shown that Russia possesses the means and, more importantly, the motives to pursue such acts. Additionally, there is more evidence than just the Institute for Prospective Military Studies.

One witness mentioned a medical research facility in Saint Petersburg with recorded links to unit 29155. This facility also happens to research the consequences of ultra and infrasound frequencies on the brain. Given its sustained communication with military scientists, unit 29155 is the plausible executor if Russia is behind Havana Syndrome. The unit is known for offensive terror actions, including the Salisbury Poisonings and a series of explosions at NATO ammunition facilities throughout the 2010s. Most crucially, an AHI investigation established that members of unit 29155 were in proximity of confirmed AHI incidents on at least four occasions. Further revelations will likely follow.

While evidence points to Russia, the U.S. government’s response has left conflicting or puzzling messages to the public. According to a March 2023 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, most intelligence agencies deem it “very unlikely” that a foreign adversary is behind AHIs. However, interviews with agency officials reveal low confidence or outright disagreement with that assessment. One of the recent congressional witnesses, who has a top-secret security clearance, said that the classified material he personally reviewed “directly contradicts” the public statements from the Executive Branch on the origins and extent of AHIs. He also said numerous agencies have withheld information from sister agencies and intentionally neglected critical evidence that would implicate a foreign adversary.

These discrepancies hint at a possible cover-up within the U.S. government, although there are legitimate reasons for deliberately withholding such information. Perhaps the government refuses to release the truth to prevent the weapon’s proliferation. While the witnesses did not divulge specific details due to classification, they did mention that the weapon is small enough to fit in a backpack. However, the revelation that certain agencies are refusing to share pertinent information with sister agencies invariably fuels conspiracy theories regarding the nefarious deep state.

Whatever the reason may be, the irresolute response by the American executive branch feels like a whitewashing for the victims and their families. Whether Russia or another adversary is responsible, they are targeting America’s best and the brightest. Most of the victims hope to return to work one day, but many will never fully recover. The lack of clarity surrounding this issue is why the recent congressional hearing was held–to shed light on AHIs and spur elected representatives to take action. Government-provided healthcare is the most evident policy option, and it is Congress’s job to ensure available funding.

As to whether a specific perpetrator will ever be identified, only time will tell.

The Soviet T-64 tank, developed and produced by the Soviet Union at one of the largest armour manufacturing facilities in the Soviet Union, in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Now most T-64s are used by Ukraine’s Armed Forces.

The renewed assault by Russian forces on the Kharkiv region of Ukraine came as a surprise to many as it was thought that the resource depletion of both Ukraine’s and Russia’s forces had dwindled the ability to take large offenses after years of fighting. The motivation for such a large assault likely came about due to many decisions that should probably not have been committed to by Ukraine allies. Weakness in the coalition supporting not only Ukraine, but US and Western allies abroad will play into actions in Eastern Europe, even if taking place completely outside of the region.

In is likely the case that Russian military resources are depleted, but the attack was committed to due to circumstances. The motivation for such a move would reflect one seen during the Second World War. In the Battle of the Bulge, German forces used many of their reserves towards the end of the war to re-conquer parts of Belgium towards the shipping port of Antwerp with Germany’s remaining military strength. Taking one of the largest ports in Western Europe would have stunted the Allies advance on Germany, even if the end victory would still have been likely in the Allies’ favour. Kharkiv is important to Ukraine and the region for many reasons, and was always a logistical prize for Russia.

Kharkiv is Ukraine’s second largest city and has historically been a central main city close to the front lines of many of the wars between the Soviet Union and Germany. During the Cold War period, Kharkiv was the base for many of the Soviet Union’s manufacturing and military industrial capabilities, producing many of the tanks currently being used on the battlefield by both Russia and Ukraine. Kharkiv is one of the main populations centres that would need to be encountered when approaching Moscow from the West, and during the Soviet era, was a strategic bulwark against foreign invasions from abroad.

One of the factors that may have encouraged a recent attack on Kharkiv and Sumy is the agreement to supply Ukraine with more advanced weapons from the US and other allies. While ATACMS had been supplied in silence towards Ukraine before any agreement was made in the US, it has been shown that assaulting a fortified Russian position has cost Ukraine many Western supplied Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks. If Russia can quickly take added territory and create barriers, they already know they will be met with some level of success in maintaining the territory, even against NATO weapons.

The use of drones, ATACAMS and long range missiles have targeted many oil and gas production facilities inside of Russia, with ATACAMS being used successfully along with anti-air assets to harass Russian forces and air capabilities. While attacks on Russian oil and gas may be an escalation that the Western allies did not want, Ukraine knows that it needs to affect Russian oil profits as there are still mechanisms where European countries and other allies are benefitting from Russian oil and gas. Despite sanctions, there is little movement in fully quelling the income Russia earns from these profits to fund their war effort. While assaults on Russian infrastructure are not the best tactic for the West or even Ukraine, the lack of de-escalatory policies limiting European use of Russian oil and gas have not been sufficient. As long as North American energy is being hamstrung to Europe and Asia, Ukraine is left on their own to implement an escalatory policy that will complicate the war and put more civilians at risk.

The lesson the US has taught its allies recently is that support may be fleeting, as limiting weapons to one ally sends a message to others. While Ukraine has received a great deal of support, putting the idea in the ether that domestic chaos may alter support for allies teaches all allies of the US to not depend on future support, even in the most dire of circumstances. Countries who are allies will always be independent and work for the betterment of their own citizens, and do not wish to take direction from abroad, only advice. The break in relations and treatment of allies as client states, as opposed to equals, is a victory for their adversaries in every sense of the word. The incentive for US adversaries to use domestic issues in the US and in the West to change foreign defence policy enables local chaos for strategic gain. Such policies create an economy and networks from abroad to alter and pressure local politicians to make decisions to weaken the West’s alliance in every region globally. The end result of making decisions in such an environment is to create weak policy, policies that give an opening to assaults like the one we see currently in the Kharkiv Oblast and surrounding regions. It is often the case that armies defeat themselves before the enemy defeats them. If weak policies dominate the alliance, there is no other outcome but more conflict and more loss of innocent lives.