Diplomacy & Crisis News

Minxin Pei

Pivot to Asia,

The greatest security impact of the US strategic shift to East Asia will be felt in the Middle East, the region that relies most heavily on America for its security needs.

Here’s What You Need to Remember: In the age of the US–China cold war, America may be the indispensable power for East Asia, but not for other regions.

During the Cold War, Europe was America’s strategic priority. East Asia was largely a sideshow, even though the United States fought bloody wars in Korea and Vietnam, and also provided security for Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

But in the unfolding new cold war between the US and China, America’s strategic priorities have flipped. Today, US security strategy is dominated by the China threat, and East Asia has replaced Europe as the principal theatre of the world’s defining geopolitical contest. And the security consequences of this shift in America’s focus are becoming increasingly visible.

Most notably, America’s adversaries are taking advantage of its preoccupation with China to test US resolve. Iran, for example, has hardened its position in the stalemated negotiations on reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 nuclear deal from which US President Donald Trump’s administration withdrew in 2018. Iranian leaders appear to be betting that President Joe Biden will be extremely reluctant to resort to military force and get bogged down in a new Middle Eastern war when the US is planning for a potential conflict with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military threats against Ukraine are apparently based on similar calculations. Putin believes that he now has a far freer hand to restore Russia’s influence in its immediate neighbourhood, because the US can ill afford to be distracted from its strategic focus on China.

The recent actions by Iran and Russia vividly illustrate America’s strategic dilemma. To increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome in its cold war with China, the US must maintain its strategic discipline and steer clear of secondary conflicts that could divert its attention and resources. Biden’s abrupt—and botched—withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 underscores his administration’s determination in that regard.

How America’s standoffs with Iran and Russia play out remains to be seen, but it’s a safe bet that the US will sooner or later encounter similar tests elsewhere. Some regional powers will be tempted to bully weaker neighbours because they think that the US pivot to East Asia will make American military intervention much less likely.

To be sure, America’s focus on China will affect different regions differently, with much less impact on regional security in Latin America and Africa than in the Middle East. In Latin America and Africa, US policy in the coming years will likely emphasise economic, technological and diplomatic competition with China. The losers will be countries where China has negligible influence or interests.

The greatest security impact of the US strategic shift to East Asia will be felt in the Middle East, the region that relies most heavily on America for its security needs. In all likelihood, focusing on China will dramatically curtail America’s role as the region’s policeman. While the US will continue to provide arms and aid to its most important allies and partners, the Middle East as a whole will have to live without the US as its security provider.

More generally, if the US maintains its strategic emphasis on China, it will unavoidably lose considerable geopolitical influence. Countries that lose American largesse will understandably feel less beholden to the US.

But the diminution of America’s global stature could also bring significant benefits—for both the US and the rest of the world. Strategic discipline would make the US less likely to wage unnecessary wars. The dark side of US unipolarity during much of the post–Cold War era has been America’s recklessness in resorting to military force. According to the US Congressional Research Service, in the three decades since the Cold War ended, the US has used its armed forces abroad every year. In particular, it has squandered an immense amount of blood and treasure in two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Elsewhere, America’s new geopolitical orientation will force countries that have until now counted on US protection and support to learn to fend for themselves. For example, some Middle Eastern countries have sought to rebuild ties and foster peace in preparation for American disengagement: relations between some Gulf states and Israel have improved dramatically in recent years.

In Europe, ‘strategic autonomy’ may be mostly rhetoric for now. But as the US makes it increasingly clear to its European allies that the region is a secondary priority, they will have to turn their rhetoric into action.

Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright once claimed that the US is the world’s ‘indispensable nation’. That description has arguably been true for most of the post–Cold War era. In the age of the US–China cold war, America may be the indispensable power for East Asia, but not for other regions. As this new reality takes hold, the rest of the world will have no choice but to adapt. That could lead to more military conflict, but it could also lead to more peace.

Minxin Pei is professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. 

This article was first published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in partnership with Project Syndicate.

Image: Reuters

Aid and food distribution operations in northern Ethiopia are about “to grind to a halt” amid ongoing fighting, bloodshed and a lack of funding that is making humanitarian access impossible, the UN World Food Programme, WFP, said on Friday.

Peter Suciu

T-72B3M,

Russian personnel have been undergoing training to operate the improved T-72B3M tanks, which offer a variety of improved combat properties.

The Russian military currently maintains a small force of T-72 tanks that have been upgraded to the T-72B3M version—also known as the T-72B4. The tanks were first exhibited during the 2014 Tank Biathlon World Championships, and the initial batch of twenty upgraded tanks entered service with the Western Military District of the Russian Army in February 2017.

This week, Tass reported that a batch of thirty T-72B3M tanks arrived at the Russian Army’s 201st military base in Tajikistan as part of its rearmament with advanced weaponry in December 2021. The battalion of the advanced tanks was to boost the capabilities of a motorized infantry unit through improved maneuverability while enhancing the survivability of the tank crews.

Russian personnel have been undergoing training to operate the improved T-72B3M tanks, which offer a variety of improved combat properties.

“In the course of their training, the crews studied the combat capabilities and technical characteristics of the tank, the preparation of its armaments, sighting systems, and ranging equipment. At the Lyaur mountainous proving ground, the tank gunners and commanders conducted fire on the move against the targets located at a distance of up to 2,000 meters from the 125mm guns outfitted with the Sosna-U multichannel sight that cuts the time of detecting and striking targets,” the press office of the 201st military base said in a statement.

In addition, the driver mechanics took part in a variety of exercises including speedy maneuvers, surmounting natural and artificial obstacles, and moving backward using rear-view cameras.

Russia’s Central Military District Commander Colonel-General Alexander Lapin had previously told reporters that a set of measures was underway to further enhance the combat potential of the 201st Russian military base in Tajikistan, including its rearmament with advanced weapon systems.

The Russian Army’s 201st Military Base in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, is Russia’s largest military facility outside of its national borders. It comprises motor rifle, armored, artillery, and reconnaissance units, air defense forces; radiation, chemical, and biological protection and signal troops. Under an agreement signed in October 2012, Russia’s military base in Tajikistan will remain operational until at least 2042.

New Lease on Life

The Soviet-designed T-72 main battle tank (MBT) initially entered production in 1971 to replace the T-54/T-55 tank series that had been the workhorse of the Soviet tank forces in the latter half of the Cold War. More than 25,000 T-72s were produced including for export.

Moscow has made significant efforts to modernize its aging tanks even as it has developed more modern armored combat platforms, including the T-14 Armata. The T-72B3M is the latest iteration of the ubiquitous T-72, and it features a nearly identical layout with driver’s cab at forward hull, fighting compartment in the center, and the power-pack at the rear. The T-72B3M MBT is still manned by a crew of three, which include a driver/mechanic, a commander, and a gunner.

The middle section of the forward hull of the MBT houses the driver, while the turret accommodates the other two crew members. The T-72B3M is equipped with an advanced fire control system and a new thermal sight. In addition, the mobility and combat characteristics of the tank have also been improved to compete with the most advanced tanks worldwide. The tank is even equipped with radio systems for encrypted digital voice and data transfer, snorkels for deep fording, and a built-in blade for self-entrenching.

Despite the age of the platform, the T-72B3M is capable of engaging and destroying targets with missiles from the halt and on the move, day and night, at ranges of up to 5,000 meters with fire accuracy close to 100 percent. In addition, the tank’s automatic target tracker increases the accuracy of fire against moving targets and substantially cuts the time of preparing for fire.

It is armed with a 2A46M5 125mm smoothbore gun, an advanced version of the 2A46M cannon. It is capable of firing a range of ammunition, including armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS), high-explosive fragmentation (HEF), and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT), as well as 9M119 Refleks (NATO codename: AT-11 Sniper) guided anti-tank missiles. The projectiles and missiles are loaded by an auto-loader.

The upgraded T-72B3M has also received an effective protection system that boosts its efficiency both in combined arms warfare and in a variety of combat environments.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters.

A new bill being debated by lawmakers in the United Kingdom increases the risk of discrimination and “serious human rights violations” and breaches the country's obligations under international law, five independent UN human rights experts said on Friday.

Warrior Maven

West Point, United States

Fast-changing combat scenarios require strength, maneuverability and crucial judgement regarding when and how to move.

Here's What You Need to Know: While various kinds of hand-to-hand combat training have been part of West Point cadet training since the early 1900s and before, Larsen was first to introduce the integrated Combatives concept to West Point in the mid-1990s.

Weapons, firearms and lethal hand-to-hand combat are often blended together in high-risk military combat confrontations, a circumstance which many military and law enforcement entities believe now requires an emerging and distinct “close-in” fight training known as “Combatives.”

Combatives, now being taught to every cadet at West Point, is built upon the reality that large percentages of casualties in warfare take place within an immediate sphere of five feet, Matt Larsen, Director of the Combative Program at West Point, told Warrior Maven Global Security in an interview.

“Lots of people are teaching how to shoot, and lots of people are teaching mixed martial arts. Combatives is the area between those where they meet. You can’t just be trained in both…..you need to put them together. They are part of a continuum,” Larsen said.

Larsen runs the West Point program and operates a long-standing consulting practice which brings Combatives training to a range of entities including the US military, friendly foreign forces and law enforcement organizations.

While various kinds of hand-to-hand combat training have been part of West Point cadet training since the early 1900s and before, Larsen was first to introduce the integrated Combatives concept to West Point in the mid-1990s.

The training prepares for fights wherein an enemy quickly reaches for a gun or knife or attempts to take a weapon from a person they are attacking. Confrontations of this kind require an integrated approach - blending physical strength, hand-to-hand attack and close-in weapons use.

Fast-changing combat scenarios require strength, maneuverability and crucial judgement regarding when and how to move. An ability to anticipate enemy moves and counter weapons, firearms and hand-combat attacks is fundamental to the training. Learning how to learn, Larsen says, is a key to making progress.

“Fights are all about range and angle,” he added. 

Previously the West Point combatives program was run by US-based global security firm Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions LLC (Torres AES here} from Virginia, The program was so successful that the academy hired Matt Larsen as a full time Director of Combatives training.

Larsen was an employee of Torres which in addition to combatives supports the US State Dept., DoD, DoJ and other elite US agencies offering a range of security and training services. Torres guards numerous US Embassies and DoD Forward Operating Bases around the world, works with friendly foreign governments and trains clients in a range of areas - to include cybersecurity, cyber and digital forensics, law enforcement, prison operations, government transformation, combatives, linguistics and other areas.​

Working for Torres, Larson taught Combatives and Close Quarter Battle (CQB) to US Forces in Iraq. CQB, as one might expect, took on a new urgency following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Small ground units were routinely called upon to “clear areas,” attack and engage small groups of insurgents and engage in high-stakes combat in close-quarter buildings and urban environments.

"We were glad to have Matt's expertise in bringing a unique blend of combat skill to our soldiers in Iraq. This kind of integrated "close-in" training seems to address an often unrecognized need to prepare for how fights happen," Torres CEO Jerry Torres told Maven.

The training, described by Larsen as a process rather than a particular event or tactic, operates on the assumption that many close-in fights typically involve a combination of knives, guns and a need for physical combat.

“When was the last time a group of soldiers went into a building where they could shoot everybody in there? You cannot be proficient at clearing a room unless you are proficient in hand-to-hand combat,” Larsen explained.

Grounded in what Larsen points to as a “warrior ethos,” Combatives training explores the full range of dynamics associated with close-in combat. This includes assessments of pre-combat cues, ways to quickly access a weapon, block a sudden attack and maintain the requisite level of readiness for moments when fights might erupt.

Combatives skill can not only lead to more successful attacks or warzone engagements but can also at times prevent violence from escalating to a lethal level. For instance, what are someone’s options at a security checkpoint when an intruder causes problems? Larsen asked.

“If you do not have hand-to-hand combat skills, your only option is lethal,” he said.

Having trained police forces and US allies such as Kuwaiti special forces, Canadian special forces and British infantry, Larsen says global urbanization is creating a growing need for “close-in” combat skills.

There are also, quite naturally, many key applications of Combatives for police forces and other law enforcement entities.

“31-percent of police are killed from within five feet. 38-percent of the fatalities do not involve marksmanship,” Larsen said.

This article first appeared on Warrior Maven in 2018 and is being republished here due to reader interest.

Image: U.S. Army Flickr.

Authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in neighbouring Serbia, must condemn and refrain from any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, the UN human rights office, OHCHR, said on Friday. 

Trevor Filseth

Nord Stream 2, Europe

The pipeline may provide Russia with significant leverage over America's NATO allies. 

In a floor vote on Thursday, the U.S. Senate failed to adopt Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) bill to impose sanctions against Russia’s Nord Stream 2 undersea natural gas pipeline.

Fifty-five senators voted in favor of the proposal, including all but one Senate Republican and six Democrats, while forty-three Democrats and Republican Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposed it. Although it secured a majority, the legislation fell five votes short of the sixty votes required to pass.

While Senate Democrats expressed their disapproval of the Russian government’s activities, the opponents of Cruz’s bill justified their votes by citing the existence of similar legislation proposed by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Menendez’s bill would not immediately act against the pipeline but would sanction it and other Russian entities if the Kremlin launched a military intervention in Ukraine.

Opponents of the bill also cited the potential for divisions with America’s NATO allies, who largely share Washington’s foreign policy priorities but would benefit economically from cheap Russian gas.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) argued that the legislation could “drive a wedge” between the United States and Europe. Shaheen claimed that sanctions could be particularly damaging to the United States’ relationship with Germany, where the pipeline is located.

Although the Biden administration has not opted to sanction the pipeline, it has vocally opposed it, arguing that it may provide Moscow with leverage over Europe’s foreign policy. U.S. allies in Eastern Europe have also opposed the pipeline, in part because its construction excludes them from transit fees for shipping gas through their territory in existing pipelines.

In advocating for his bill, Cruz claimed that Ukraine would “risk … getting wiped off the map altogether” if the pipeline went into effect.

The undersea pipeline was constructed between terminals in the Russian city of Vyborg and the German city of Greifswald via the Baltic Sea. The pipeline was built at a cost of roughly $11 billion and was completed in late 2021. However, it has not yet gone into operation due to delays in regulatory approval. If no sanctions are forthcoming from the United States, it is predicted that the first gas shipments will begin in mid-2022.

Trevor Filseth is a current and foreign affairs writer for the National Interest.

Image: Reuters

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called on Friday for concerted international action to end armed conflict in Africa’s central Sahel region, which has forced more than 2.5 million people to flee their homes in the last decade.

Vanessa Geidel

Security, East Asia

While Scholz has not been an outspoken critic of Beijing, Germany’s new foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, has made strong statements critical of China.

Here’s What You Need to Remember: If Scholz’s SPD could govern alone, we would likely witness a continuity of Merkel’s policy in the region.

After 16 years of Angela Merkel’s leadership, a tight race on election night and almost two months of coalition negotiations in Germany, the Social Democratic Party, or SPD, returned to power with Olaf Scholz the new chancellor. With the Greens and the Free Democratic Party, they’ve formed the Ampelkoalition (traffic light coalition)—the federal republic’s first ever three-party governing arrangement.

The new chancellor is widely expected to largely continue Merkel’s legacy, but the coalition agreement outlining policy plans for the next four years signals changes in German’s approach to the Indo-Pacific.

Since the September election, two important announcements were made regarding future German activity in the region. In November, the chief of the German Navy, Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, said he would send vessels into the Indo-Pacific every two years with the intention of increasing cooperation with Japan, Australia and the US, and to advocate for peace, free navigation and maintenance of the rules-based international order in the South China Sea. The announcement came during a visit to Tokyo by the German frigate Bayern on its seven-month voyage through the region.

In September, the German Air Force will participate in Pitch Black, a multinational exercise hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force and scheduled to take place over northern Australia. Germany plans to send six Eurofighters, three refuelling tankers and three transport aircraft, a significant step up in its Indo-Pacific participation.

While the navy and air force plans were put in place under Merkel, the new coalition has signalled its wish to increase Germany’s presence in the Indo-Pacific.

If the Scholz government stays true to that promise, then we’re likely to see Germany engage with more confidence, bluntness and interest to intensify cooperation with regional nations.

The coalition agreement aims to strengthen cooperation on multilateralism, democracy, climate protection, trade and digitalisation, and to expand cooperation between the EU and ASEAN. The agreement specifically seeks increased cooperation on multiple levels with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea as values-based partners.

The agreement also seeks a stronger strategic partnership with India and says Germany wishes to address the impacts of climate change and to ‘stand up for those affected by rising sea levels’.

If the coalition contract is to be taken at face value, German engagement with Beijing may be blunter than that of past administrations.

The agreement sets out a China policy driven by values and not afraid to criticise Beijing’s internal affairs and geopolitics. The agreement opposes Beijing’s ‘one-China’ policy and strongly supports democratic Taiwan’s inclusion in international organisations. It takes the position strongly that all changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait must happen peacefully and with mutual agreement. The new government wants China to return to the ‘one country, two systems’ principle for Hong Kong and it has undertaken to address human rights violations in Xinjiang against the Uyghur and Kazakh minorities.

This approach to China contrasts with the coalition contract at the start of Merkel’s final term in 2018. That deal chose to not address China’s human rights abuses in detail and only briefly mentioned its growing geopolitical importance. The 2018 contract favoured trade and investment for Germany’s economic benefit. Merkel’s stance on China was at times considered too lenient and she appeared reluctant to make concrete statements condemning Beijing.

The 2021 agreement repeatedly uses the term ‘Indo-Pacific’, which was not mentioned in the 2018 agreement, as Germany adopts new terminology championed by India, Australia and the US.

Indications are that the Scholz government will not be shy about stepping on Beijing’s toes. While some media outlets have suggested that the agreement signals a ‘break with China’, Chinese government mouthpiece Global Times has downplayed the potential impact on relations. It says the ‘landscape of China–Germany cooperation will not change’ as ‘Scholz’s party has always advocated for dialogue with China’. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian has already warned Germany that issues such as Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan are ‘all China’s internal affairs’.

While Scholz has not been an outspoken critic of Beijing, Germany’s new foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, has made strong statements critical of China. Baerbock, who was the Greens’ candidate for chancellor, has described China’s Belt and Road Initiative as ‘hardcore power politics’ and has urged a ban on products from Xinjiang, saying Europe must make sure that ‘products from forced labour do not come onto our market’. Since becoming foreign minister on 8 December, she has spoken out against previous styles of German diplomacy, stating that ‘eloquent silence is not a form of diplomacy in the long run, even if it has been seen that way by some in recent years.’ She aims to establish a values-driven relationship with China based on ‘dialogue and toughness’.

This week, Baerbock made her first official trip to the US, meeting with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. She stressed the importance of the German-American relations, stating that Europe has ‘no partner stronger than the US’.

How much Germany’s Indo-Pacific policies of the next four years end up reflecting those outlined in the coalition agreement remains to be seen. If Scholz’s SPD could govern alone, we would likely witness a continuity of Merkel’s policy in the region. A significant deciding factor will be how much room Scholz will grant Baerbock to implement her own policies. If she is able to develop freely in the role, then Beijing can expect some difficult years ahead with Berlin.

Vanessa Geidel is a coordinator in ASPI’s professional development program. 

This article was first published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Tu-160M, Europe

The Tu-160M retains many of the design elements of the original aircraft, but features numerous advancements and new hardware.

Russia’s Tupolev Tu-160 “White Swan” (NATO reporting name “Blackjack”) was the last strategic bomber designed for the Soviet Union. The legacy airframe, which first entered service in 1987, remains the largest and heaviest bomber ever built.

As part of the Russian Air Force’s Long Range Aviation branch, efforts have been made to keep the active fleet flying. Upgrades to its electronics system and other modernization efforts have been ongoing since the early 2000s, and in 2015, Moscow announced plans to resume production of an upgraded version of the White Swan.

The first of those new production models has reportedly performed its debut flight.

“On January 12, the first newly-built Tu-160M strategic missile-carrying bomber performed its debut flight from the aerodrome of the Kazan Aviation Enterprise, a subsidiary of the Tupolev Company [part of the United Aircraft Corporation within Rostec],” the press office of the state technology corporation Rostec announced according to a report from Tass.

The newly-built strategic bomber performed its maiden flight, which lasted about thirty minutes, at an altitude of 600 meters. During the flight, the crew was able to inspect the aircraft during various aerial maneuvers.

Significant Improvements

The Tu-160M retains many of the design elements of the original aircraft, but features numerous advancements and new hardware. It remains the largest and heaviest Mach 2+ supersonic military aircraft ever built and is second in overall length to the experimental XB-70 Valkyrie.

“The new aircraft has 80 percent of its systems and equipment modernized,” explained United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) CEO Yury Slyusar.

The upgraded White Swan, which remains outwardly similar to the American Rockwell B-1 Lancer, will reportedly be able to carry new emerging weapons.

“Today we see considerable prospects for the Tu-160 platform: its further development will make it possible to use it for new, including breakthrough weapons,” explained Russian Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov.

The Tu-160M is now designated to strike enemy targets in remote areas with nuclear and conventional weapons. Whereas the U.S. Air Force’s B-1 is a bomber in the classical sense—meaning it flies to targets to deploy its bomb load—the Tu-160 was developed to operate as a stand-off weapons platform, where missiles would be launched from its bomb bay doors.

After deploying its weapons load, the “White Swan” would speed off at Mach 2+. The White Swan was also the only Soviet-designed bomber not to carry any defensive weapons, which is why even today it is routinely escorted in patrol missions by fighter aircraft such as the MiG-31.

Moscow has strived to tout the long-range capabilities of the Tu-160, and in September 2020 two crews onboard one of the bombers broke a record for the longest non-stop flight for the aircraft. It was in the air for more than twenty-five hours, and covered a distance of more than 20,000 kilometers. Perhaps Russia will seek to best its record with a new model Tu-160.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters.

Wallace C. Gregson

EMALS, Indo-Pacific

The United States must eliminate any worries about revealing EMALS and AAG technologies and share the production and implementation with its allies.

Liberal democratic countries are stirring. On September 15, 2021, the leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced the establishment of AUKUS, “an enhanced trilateral security partnership.” On January 6, 2022, Japan and Australia signed a defense pact, making Australia only the second nation to have such an agreement with Japan. On January 7, Japan time, the United States and Japan convened the 2022 U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee. Among many other remarkable items is this paragraph:

The Ministers committed to pursue joint investments that accelerate innovation and ensure the Alliance maintains its technological edge in critical and emerging fields, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, directed energy, and quantum computing. The Ministers concurred to conduct a joint analysis focused on future cooperation in counter-hypersonic technology. They also welcomed the framework Exchange of Notes on Cooperative Research, Development, Production and Sustainment as well as Cooperation in Testing and Evaluation, based on which the two sides will advance and accelerate collaboration on emerging technologies. [Emphasis added] They stressed collaboration on streamlined procurement and resilient defense supply chains.

The sincerity of this pledge to advance and accelerate collaboration will be tested soon. Japan is interested in the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. It’s now a proven technology on the U.S. Navy’s newest carrier, CVN 78, the Gerald R Ford. It’s also said to be approved for sale to one U.S. ally in Europe. Japan is keenly interested in railgun and directed energy weapons, and is aware that China is about to commission a new carrier with electromagnetic launch and recovery technology. 

We’re off to a good start on developing operational naval interoperability. The United Kingdom devoted the maiden voyage of its new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and its accompanying multinational escorts as Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG-21), to working with allies and partners from Great Britain to the Middle East to East Asia. Its “F-35 Lightning II” air group included a U.S. Marine Corps F-35B squadron and a Royal Air Force F-35B squadron. (The “B” model is the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the F-35). While in the Mediterranean the Queen Elizabeth brought Italian F-35B fighters aboard, proving that multinational operations from one carrier are effective across language barriers. The Queen Elizabeth deployment was not just a global demonstration. While in the Middle East, CSG-21’s air wing participated in combat missions against ISIS.

In Asia, CSG-21 participated in multinational exercises involving six different navies—the U.S. Navy, the British Royal Navy, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal New Zealand Navy. 

Two U.S. carrier strike groups drilled with the United Kingdom’s CSG-21 and a Japanese big-deck warship in a major naval exercise in the waters southeast of Okinawa, Japan. A total of seventeen surface ships, including four aircraft carriers, operated together in the exercises. 

The two U.S. carriers employ conventional catapults and arresting gear, while the Queen Elizabeth uses a “ski jump” bow for launch. The Japanese ship, the JS Izumo (DDH-183), a “straight deck” without catapults, ski jump, or arresting gear, was recently modified with a new deck coating to support F-35B operations. U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs embarked on Izumo to assist in verifying the modifications and to participate in the exercises. Japan is buying both the F-35A and F-35B aircraft and returning to the ranks of nations deploying aircraft carriers. 

Naval task forces, especially those that include one or more aircraft carriers, are ideal air, land, and sea power and influence projection formations. Nothing else provides such presence, wide-area engagement, surveillance, and maritime domain awareness. Recent deployments involving Great Britain’s new carrier alongside U.S. and other allied ships provided powerful demonstrations of presence and power. The United States can build on this recent multinational effort through the creation of standing multinational maritime task forces that can accept many allied participants. Joint and combined theater commands, in both Northeast and Southeast Asia, would support these task forces and enhance readiness and influence across all participating forces.

The United States must also look to near-term enhancements to its allied naval capabilities. One such enhancement should be incorporating the Electromagnetic Launch System and its accompanying Advanced Arresting Gear throughout allied forces. Launch and recovery cycles of all types of aircraft, manned and unmanned, tankers, surveillance planes, and stealth fighters are accelerated with less stress on the airframes will realize greater range and a wider assortment of capabilities across all aviation components. These systems, adapted for smaller decks currently thought capable only of rotary-wing or STOVL (short takeoff and vertical landing) aircraft, will enhance capability across the force, adding to allied interoperability and effectiveness. With modernized launch and recovery systems among allied forces, individual aircraft can access any flight deck, an essential capability in any emergency.

Imitation is often part of international competition. So is demonstration and intimidation. This naval competition is no exception. China’s newest carrier under construction is likely to employ electromagnetic systems to support aircraft launch and recovery. It’s a good bet that the People’s Liberation Army Navy will showcase this achievement near Japan and Taiwan to demonstrate its superiority, and as a counter to the USS Ford before it can deploy to the region. That’s no small matter as the United States competes for influence in the Western Pacific. China is already marketing its version of EMALS to clients like Pakistan and others. U.S. allies are watching. Will the United States respond?

If the United States can’t restrain the proliferation of this type of technology, it must move the goalposts, developing and improving common alliance capabilities at unmatched speed. The United States must eliminate any worries about revealing EMALS and AAG technologies and share the production and implementation with its allies. Rapid implementation of these systems across U.S. and allied fleets, and the development of operational concepts to take maximum advantage, are essential.

Wallace C. Gregson served as a former assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs (2009-11) and is currently a senior advisor at Avascent International as well as senior director for China and the Pacific at the Center for the National Interest. Gregson last served as the Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific; Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific; and Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Bases, Pacific, headquartered at Camp H. M. Smith, Hawaii. He is a senior advisor to General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems.

Image: Flickr.

Ahmad Hashemi

Democracy, Middle East

Iran needs to choose whether it wants to remain an expansionist Persian-Shiite empire or transform into a multi-ethnic democracy where Persians and Shiites have no claim over other ethnic, racial, and sectarian groups.

Though Iran has attempted to move towards democracy in fits and starts since the Constitutional Revolution of 1905, any genuine advance forward has been met with unending opposition, mainly originating from influential landlords, conservative circles, traditional Shiite clerics, and other significant social forces. The uncomfortable reality is that despite being a century into its transformation, there are myriad factions, including a large number of ethnic Persian figures and political parties, that have indicated a willingness to give up on the prospect of democracy in exchange for the preservation of contemporary Iran as the successor to the Persian empire of old.

Iranian officials have time and time again stated that they are the last guardians of the Persian empire, and that Iran’s destiny is intertwined with that of the Islamic Republic. During the anti-regime protests in November 2018, the Iranian regime went as far as cautioning the public that people need not protest, as doing so would bring about the country’s collapse and enable external its enemies to “Syrianize” Iran.

Strange as it may sound, this motivation to preserve traditional social structures transcends contemporary political divides. Various opposition forces also hold similar opinions: when the  2019 protests in Iran reached an unprecedented and worrying level—according to a Reuters report, more than 1,500 protesters were killed—the Persian-dominated Freedom Movement of Iran warned that “the collapse of Iran is imminent,” expressing concern that the fall of the regime would coincide with Iran’s collapse. Some secular Persian ethno-nationalists, such as the dissident politician and former minister of information and tourism under the shah of Iran, Daryoush Homayoun, have clearly indicated that they are willing to bear arms and fight on the side of the current Islamist regime if that is what it takes to hold together the Persian empire. The issue is serious enough that scholar Brenda Shaffer, who has extensively written on Iran and its ethnic groups, has contended that “Iran faces the democracy conundrum: in multi-ethnic states where one non-majority group prevails over others, democratization entails risk of loss of empire.”

A significant number of ethnic Persians, including members of the former regime of the shah, who fled the country after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, support the idea of a unified Persian empire at the cost of denying basic rights to the non-Persian half of the population—even if that means condoning the nuclearization of Iran, supporting Iran’s designated Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, and glorifying its deceased commander, Qassem Soleimani. According to a report in the Washington Post, Ardeshir Zahedi, the last ambassador of Iran to the United States and the former son-in-law of the shah, “sometimes spoke favorably of the new regime, defending the country’s nuclear program and praising Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani.”

The Iranian regime is well aware of both this complex situation and the desire, particularly prevalent among Persians, to preserve “the empire” and rule over non-Persian ethnic groups in Iran and potentially even beyond. This expansionist ideology, commonly referred to as Iranshahr, is often exploited by the regime to justify its military adventurism abroad and suppress domestic dissent voices, especially among non-Persian ethnic groups, who have stronger reasons to push for democracy.

Secular Iranshahri Persians Support the Islamist Regime

Why do many secular Persian ethnonationalists support the current clerical regime in Iran? The honest answer is that they are deeply concerned over the prospect of Iran disintegrating outright due to deep ethnic inequalities within the country. Ironically, however, Persian nationalists hide this fear when sharing their opinions with Western pundits. Take, for example, AEI scholar Michael Rubin, who has repeated the same argument of ethnic Persians in his writings—including in a recent article with a rather clear title: “Iran Will Not Fracture on Ethnic Lines Like Ethiopia.”

Rubin, though, cannot really be blamed: he, like most other U.S. analysts, policymakers, and DC think-tankers, is not familiar enough with the nuances of Iran’s domestic dynamics and gets his “facts” about Iran from the very same Persian ethno-nationalists who have every reason to present a distorted and biased view on the country’s complex ethnic composition and its implications for the future.

Consider this: because of ethnic inequalities within Iran, Persians are generally more affluent, better-educated, and better-organized. Consequently, they are overrepresented in Iranian diaspora, academia, media outlets, and think tanks. For instance, the Iranian-American journalists and think-tankers who conduct research activities related to Iran at major Washington DC think tanks or media outlets are almost exclusively either ethnic Persians or Persianized Iranians. The latter generally have sympathetic views on Persians and usually harbor unfavorable opinions on non-Persian ethnic groups in Iran because they are insecure about any concept of Iranian “nationhood” which is not exclusively based on the Persian identity.

A holistic approach to future developments in Iran should contain a more balanced view on Iran’s ethnic and other complex domestic dynamics. The Persian factor, too, is equally important. If Persians were to gradually come to embrace an inclusive, decentralized democratic structure for the future of Iran, then democratization efforts would gain momentum. If not, then the disintegration of the country would become a likelier possibility.

Contrary to what experts like Rubin argue, it is not outside of the realm of reality to anticipate that Iran could collapse as a result of what some might call a semi-apartheid system—in place since 1925—and split the country into its constituent ethnic units, including Azerbaijanis, Arabs, Kurds, and Baluch. It is important to recognize the diversity within Iran. Yet, instead of recognizing its multi-ethnic composition, the Islamist regime has further tilted towards Persian ethnonationalism over the last two decades, unofficially embracing the Pahlavi-era doctrine of “One Nation, One Language, One Supreme Leader, One God.”

Secularization Further Stokes Ethnic Awareness

Recent developments, such as the rise of global identity politics; an international resurgence of ethnonationalism; and the inception of the internet, social media, and other platforms have all contributed to a revival of ethnic identities in Iran. Moreover, Tehran’s Islamization policies have largely backfired among the youth, and as a result, ethnic nationalism has gained momentum within the country. Contrary to most Muslim-majority nations, enthusiasm for Islamist ideology in Iran has been declining for the last two decades. Ethno-nationalist movements are on the rise, and Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Arab, and Baluch groups are demanding equal economic opportunities and cultural and linguistic autonomy.

Iran needs to choose whether it wants to remain an expansionist Persian-Shiite empire (Iranshahr), or transform into a multi-ethnic democracy where Persians and Shiites have no claim over other ethnic, racial, and sectarian groups.

As the regime’s domestic legitimacy is steadily declining and its long-term survivability is in doubt, it remains to be seen what path awaits Iran.

Ahmad Hashemi is a Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Follow him on Twitter @MrAhmadHashemi.

Image: Reuters.

Wes Martin

Azerbaijan-Armenia, South Caucasus

Only through breaking Armenia’s dependency on Russia—through renormalization with Azerbaijan and Turkey—will the region’s true economic potential be unleashed.

On January 14, 2022, Turkey and Armenia will begin talks aimed at reopening Europe’s final Cold War-era closed border. The historic move, supported by the West, promises to fundamentally reconfigure the South Caucasus—and Russia’s sway within it.

Blocked borders, jagged pipelines, and irrational freight routes speak to the region’s limitations, all of which have played to the former imperial power. Russia prefers these countries to be at odds as it hands Moscow economic and political leverage while stifling solidarity against it.

Should the countries remain at odds, a landlocked Armenia will suffer under the weight of regional isolation. To the west lie the closed border with Turkey and the freight lines to Europe. To the east lie the equally sealed border with Azerbaijan and the gateway to central Asia. Yet the primary rationale for keeping both borders closed has disappeared: the occupation of almost one-fifth of Azerbaijan—according to the UN Security Council—since the 1990s.

As the USSR crumbled, the neighbors fell into conflict over the mixed region of Karabakh. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War reversed most of Armenia’s land grab. Since then, Baku has favored open borders and logistics lines. So too has Turkey, who closed its border in solidarity with ally Azerbaijan after the first war. With the status quo altered and some necessary space between the conflict, now there is an opening for change.

Without open borders, the region’s economic potential remains locked. But if open borders and restored rail lines become a reality, Armenia could create the fastest freight line between East Asia and Europe.  An alternative route would also weaken East Asia and Europe’s reliance on Russia. Cooperation in the South Caucasus also fuels greater prosperity and helps the region stand on its own feet.

But there are other barriers to overcome. It is not simply solidarity with Azerbaijan that has structured Turkey’s relations with Armenia, but a contested history. At its core is the killing of 1.5 million ethnic Armenians during World War I. Since then, Armenia has characterized said acts as genocidal but Turkey disputes the label despite recognizing atrocities were committed by the Ottoman empire. It remains a thorny issue between the two nations.

As for Azerbaijan, wounds are still raw in Armenia since the closure of the 2020 war. Being the victor of the 2020 conflict, it may be easy for Baku to talk up renormalization in its wake. Selling a radically different future from the moral puncture of defeat—with former foes establishing trade and diplomatic relations—is another matter.

Given the discontent now playing out within Armenia, the difficulties are clear. Detainees released from Azerbaijan—which the government had lobbied for—were condemned by the speaker of the house as being deserters and traitors, sparking protests from the parents. Many are looking for someone to blame, scapegoats permitted.

Before he became prime ministership, Nikol Pashinyan had championed himself as a reformer following the 2018 protests against a corrupt ruling elite. Those he had toppled led the counter-offense after defeat in the war, staging an unsuccessful coup. They were the militaristic parties that had ruled Armenia for much of its independence and had shunned compromise to resolve the long-frozen conflict. Many were themselves from Karabakh and based their legitimacy—often to deflect from accusations of graft or incompetence—on the struggle for the territory.

Having survived the junta’s unsuccessful coup d’etat, Pashinyan is now talking up cooperation with Armenia’s former enemies. This has again earned him another chorus of traitor. Yet despite the pressure he is experiencing, he must remain steadfast. He won a renewed mandate postwar to chart a different path from the discredited elite of the past: turning away from Russia and toward the West.

If anything, however, Russia’s grip has tightened over Armenia’s sovereignty, with Moscow’s peacekeepers stationed in Karabakh. This growing dependence was neatly delineated by the recent upheaval in Kazakhstan. As part of the Russian-controlled Collective Security Treaty Organization, Pashinyan sent Armenian troops to quell the protests.

This rankled a domestic population who did not see Russia’s sweep to its aid in a time of need. It was also viewed at odds with the prime minister and his supporters’ politics. The Kazakhstan protests his troops helped quell differed little from the 2018 Velvet Revolution that had swept him to power. But power politics prevailed over values. Pashinyan had little choice but to follow orders. Only through breaking Armenia’s dependency on Moscow—through renormalization with Azerbaijan and Turkey—will that change.

The first president of an independent Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, spoke of compromise following the first Karabakh war to stabilize the region and entrench national sovereignty. He was toppled by the same forces that now threaten Pashinyan. But the current prime minister must hold out. Economic prosperity not only for Armenia, but for the whole region—and then throwing off the Russian yoke—will be the reward.

Colonel (Ret.) Wes Martin has served in law enforcement positions around the world and holds an MBA in International Politics and Business.

Image: Reuters.

Peter Suciu

Inflation,

Many Americans haven't seen an annual inflation rate this high in their entire lives. 

Russia is massing troops on the border with Ukraine, China is expanding its presence in the Indo-Pacific Region, North Korea is testing hypersonic weapons, and COVID-19 shows no signs of going away. Yet, for most Americans, the most worrisome threat is the record inflation that is increasing household expenses and eating into wages. The 7 percent increase in the inflation rate over the course of 2021 marked the largest annual increase in inflation in nearly four decades.

Americans saw prices for the basic necessities they rely on rise at a dramatic rate in 2021. While the government's efforts to provide stimulus aid and ultra-low interest rates motivated Americans to spend, supply chain woes resulted in such high demand for goods that prices increased at a record pace.

The U.S. Department of Labor reported on Wednesday that the core inflation rate, which excludes volatile goods such as food and gas, jumped by 5.5 percent in December, the highest in decades. According to the Associated Press, overall inflation rose 0.5 percent from November to December. The only good news was that the increase was down from 0.8 percent in October.

Economists have warned that because inflation pressures show no sign of easing, inflation is unlikely to fall back to pre-pandemic levels in the near future. While Americans are feeling it the most, the nineteen countries that use the euro had the largest increase in the annual inflation rate since the Euro was adopted.

Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), a group that advocates on behalf of taxpayers and consumers, has slammed the Biden administration, calling inflation a hidden tax on the American people.

"Between the energy crisis, supply chain issues, concerns about the economy, and latest job reports, it's time for Washington to wake up," the TPA said in a statement. "They ought to reverse course and stop the reckless government spending packages, like Build Back Better, that are still being discussed in Congress. The Biden Administration should immediately drop tariffs across the board and Congress should rein in the administration's ability to unilaterally hike tariffs in the future."

The White House has argued that Build Back Better would reduce the cost of living, especially for many low-income families, and ease inflation over the long run. However, the key Democratic holdout, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), has continued to express concern that the bill would only increase inflation.

"Another month of record-breaking inflation. In just one year, there has been a 7 percent increase across the board, with many categories of goods and services well into the double digits," Patrick Hedger, executive director of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said via an email. "Americans are feeling it each month when they go to buy necessities like groceries and gas. Small businesses are feeling the economic pinch when purchasing supplies. Economists predicted this, and unfortunately for the American people, they were right. Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington are desperate to blame anything else besides their policies for this predictable disaster."

The economy of 2022 is starting to look a lot like 1982’s economy, but it's not certain that Joe Biden can turn things around as President Reagan did. 

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters.

James Clark

Cold War, Global

Some mistakes are costlier than others.

Here's What You Need to Know: The Cuban Missile Crisis was just the most visible instance of the United States and the Soviet Union going to war. Here are a number of others that are less well known.

In October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The standoff occurred over the installation of nuclear missiles on Cuba, just 90 miles from the states. Though the stalemate ended after 13 grueling days, it was neither the first or last time the two world powers would very nearly come to blows.

In the following years, until 1991 when the Cold War officially ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America’s military and its Russian counterpart incited mass panic and narrowly avoided World War III no fewer than five times.

While some of these incidents sound like they’re plucked out of “Dr. Strangelove,” they’re real.

Between fried computer chips, playing the wrong tape, or misinterpreting a signal, it’s a wonder that we’re still here.

Here are five times that a dumb mistake nearly ended the world in giant ball of nuclear fire.

That time someone accidentally triggered the Emergency Broadcast System

In 1971, though Cold War tensions had simmered, compared to their high point in the early ‘60s, the war in Vietnam was still in full swing, which explains the mass confusion that occurred on Feb. 20, 1971, when the Emergency Broadcast System was accidentally triggered at 9:33 a.m.

For the next 40 minutes, regularly scheduled programming was put on hold as listeners and broadcasters anxiously waited to hear an announcement from the White House. Fortunately, it was a mistake, there were no nuclear missiles hurtling toward the United States, or hostile military forces advancing on U.S. territories.

The error highlighted some problems with the Emergency Broadcast System’s safeguards and procedures. Roughly 20% of the outlets followed the correct procedures and cleared the air, the rest either started to, but stopped, or just ignored the alert completely. After operators at the National Emergency Warning Center in Colorado realized their mistake, they sent cancellation messages; however, they failed to use the correct codeword — “impish” — so that slowed things down a bit.

In 1979 the U.S. military thought its own training simulation was real and almost started World War III

Referred to as “the training tape incident,” on Nov. 9, 1979, the computers at North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, showed a massive nuclear strike aimed at U.S. command posts and nuclear forces. Launch control centers for America’s nuclear warheads received preliminary warning that the United States was under attack and fighter planes were prepared to intercept enemy bombers: World War III had begun.

Except it hadn’t. A realistic training tape was accidentally inserted into the computer that ran the nation’s early-warning programs. Fortunately the mistake was discovered within minutes after the raw data from satellites and early-warning radar systems showed no inbound missiles or enemy bombers.

Then, less than a year later, there was another computer glitch

On June 3, 1980, U.S. military command received a warning that the Soviet Union had launched a nuclear strike. Same as before, the military scrambled interceptors, missile launch crews were put on red alert, and bombers were readied. There’s no way it could be another mistake, right? Wrong.

Fortunately, a threat assessment conference was immediately convened and again scoured the raw data, discovering no missiles had actually been launched. Turns out, a single computer chip on the monitor had failed and caused random numbers of attacking missiles to appear on the screen.

A Russian commander avoided the end of the world by not telling his superiors about a possible nuclear attack

At midnight on Sept. 26, 1983, a Soviet missile detection bunker went into a panic when an alarm sounded, signaling that United States had launched five intercontinental ballistic missiles toward Russia.

In reality, the warning was a false alarm caused by the the Soviets mistaking a glint of sunlight off clouds near Montana as a missile launch. Though protocol demanded that the bunker report any signs of a missile launch to Soviet high command, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov knew the satellites were prone to errors and reasoned that an actual preemptive nuclear strike would involve hundreds of missiles, not five. Given the high tensions in both the Soviet Union and the states, Petrov’s decision to follow his gut and not report it may have averted a nuclear holocaust.

Speaking of tension, a few months later the Soviet Union thought a NATO training exercise was a preemptive strike

Though it was not widely known at the time, in November 1983, the United States and the Soviet Union came closer to starting World War III than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. During a NATO war game in Europe, dubbed Able Archer 83, the U.S. military moved 19,000 troops to the area, relocated its command elements, and raised its alert status — all steps that would typically be taken in a time of war.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was losing its mind on the other side of the iron curtain. According to documents declassified decades later, relations with the Soviet Union were “on a hair trigger.” The Soviet military was on high alert, its nuclear arsenal was readied, and units in East Germany and Poland had fighter jets prepared for takeoff, due to concerns that NATO’s war games were a ruse ahead of a preemptive strike. The country remained at that readiness level until the training exercise ended on Nov. 11 of that year.

This article by James Clark originally appeared at Task & Purpose. Follow Task & Purpose on Twitter.

Image: Flickr.

Stavros Atlamazoglou

History, Asia

In 2012, Sergeant First Class Eugene Ashley Jr. was inducted into the Special Forces Regiment’s Hall of Fame as a Distinguished Member.

Here's What You Need to Remember: To be sure, the Vietnam War offered plenty of opportunities for moments of unfathomable bravery, and Ashley’s actions on that fateful night 53 years ago make up for just one story of valor.

Some 53 years ago, in a faraway Special Forces camp in southeast Asia, Sergeant First Class Eugene Ashley Jr achieved immortality during one of the fiercest battles of the Vietnam War.

Ashley joined the Army in 1950. After finishing boot camp and Advanced Infantry Training, Ashley went to Germany. When the Korean War broke out in 1953, Ashley deployed in Korea with the 187th Regimental Combat Team. Then, for a brief period, Ashley got out of the Army and was placed in the Inactive Reserves. A few months later, he reenlisted and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division. Up to that point, Ashley had trained in numerous military occupational specialties, including as an infantryman, ambulance driver, anti-aircraft ammunition handler, heavy weapons specialist, and parachute rigger; he had also held leadership positions at the squad and company level.

 In 1966 he decided to make the jump to Special Forces and graduated from the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC) a year later. Upon completion of training, Ashley was assigned first to the 7th Special Forces Group and later to the 3rd Special Forces Group. In 1968, he deployed to the Republic of Vietnam with Charlie Company, 5th Special Forces Group.

Ashley’s arrival to Vietnam coincided with the Tet Offensive, which began in January 1968 and would last till September. During Tet, the NVA and Vietcong took US and South Vietnamese forces by surprise and attacked several large cities throughout South Vietnam, including the capital Saigon where they briefly penetrated the US Embassy.

Once in country, Ashley found his way to the large Marine Corps base at Khe Sanh, which was under siege by the North Vietnamese. Although the majority of the NVA and Vietcong attacks during the Tet Offensive were quickly dealt with, the siege of Khe Sanh continued for months. Carrying morbid similarities with the Siege of Dien Bien Phu, where the French were defeated by the Vietminh in 1954 and were forced out of Indochina, the fighting at Khe Sanh drew international attention.   

Close to Khe Sanh was the Lang Vei Special Forces Camp, which was just a mile-and-a-half from the border with Laos. Green Berets stationed in Lang Vei were no foreigners to NVA attacks. Artillery and sniper fire was a pretty common occurrence even before the Tet Offensive. But what was coming next was not common at all.

On the night of February 6, the NVA launched a tank assault on the Special Forces base. Radioing Khe Sanh for assistance, the Marines there couldn’t believe that NVA armor was within the Lang Vei perimeter—this was the first time the NVA had used tanks in force. During the initial hours of the battle, Ashley coordinated airstrikes and mortar and artillery fire in support of his fellow Green Berets in the camp. Then, seeing that reinforcements from Khe Sanh weren’t going to reach the overran camp in time, Ashley and other Green Berets took matters into their own hands.

Ashley hastily organized a relief force comprised of Special Forces operators and partner forces and led them to the nearby camp. In the ensuing hours, Ashley would lead five assaults against NVA tanks and heavy infantry. Time after time, Ashley led by example and destroyed numerous enemy positions. The fifth assault, however, would be his last.

Ashley’s Medal of Honor citation offers a glimpse of his actions on that fateful night.

“During his fifth and final assault, he adjusted airstrikes nearly on top of his assault element, forcing the enemy to withdraw and resulting in friendly control of the summit of the hill. While exposing himself to intense enemy fire, he was seriously wounded by machinegun fire but continued his mission without regard for his personal safety. After the fifth assault he lost consciousness and was carried from the summit by his comrades only to suffer a fatal wound when an enemy artillery round landed in his area. Sergeant Ashley displayed extraordinary heroism in risking his life in an attempt to save the lives of his entrapped comrades and commanding officer. His total disregard for his own personal safety while exposed to enemy observation and automatic weapons fire was an inspiration to all men committed to the assault. The resolute valor with which he led five gallant charges placed critical diversionary pressure on the attacking enemy and his valiant efforts carved a channel in the overpowering enemy forces and weapons positions through which the survivors of Camp Lang Vei eventually escaped to freedom. Sergeant Ashley’s conspicuous gallantry at the cost of his own life was in the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.”

To be sure, the Vietnam War offered plenty of opportunities for moments of unfathomable bravery, and Ashley’s actions on that fateful night 53 years ago make up for just one story of valor.

In 2012, Sergeant First Class Eugene Ashley Jr. was inducted into the Special Forces Regiment’s Hall of Fame as a Distinguished Member.

This article first appeared at Sandboxx.

Image: Wikipedia.

Charlie Gao

Sniper Rifles, United States

Sniper rifles are a relatively stagnant technology, and it should come as no surprise that all rifles on this list look relatively alike.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The primary innovations in the field of long-range shooting have come in bullet and optic technology rather than in the rifles themselves, so the race to win a contract often comes down to who can provide the better after-purchase support, and who can build the rifle to accept the latest hot cartridge that a military may want.

The modern sniper rifle rose to prominence in the 1980s as a critical tool for counterterrorist teams and continued to prove itself on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Advancements in optics, bullet, and manufacturing technology have allowed sniper rifles to reach out to further than ever before, so fielding a modern sniper rifle is important for many militaries. Here are some that could be considered the best.

1. L115A4

Accuracy International (AI) is considered to have pioneered the modern sniper rifle with their Precision Marksman (AI PM) rifle in the 1980s, which was adopted by the British Army as the L96A1. AI has provided sniper rifles to the British military since. The latest one is the L115A4, a variant of the AI AX rifle that retains some features from the earlier L115A3, the AI Arctic Warfare Super Magnum.

The L115A4 features the usual laundry list of features that are standard for a modern sniper rifle. Adjustable stock in length and height, sub-MOA accuracy, chambering in heavy cartridges like the .338 Lapua.

The primary improvements on the earlier L115A3 are the addition of a new keymod mounting system on the handguard for reduced weight and the addition of a spirit level at the rear of the receiver right above the bolt. Spirit levels are common aftermarket accessories for precision rifles as cant can cause a significant deviation in shot trajectory. The integration of a level into the rifle itself is likely a welcome addition for the military sniper.

Other variants of the AI AX chassis are used by the USMC as the Mk13 Mod 7 and by other militaries.

2. McMillan TAC-50

While most .50 anti-material rifles such as the M107 or M82 aren’t precise enough to be true sniper rifles, the TAC-50 is an exception. With half-MOA accuracy with proper ammunition, the TAC-50 is known for being the rifle used to achieve the longest sniper kills in the world, with Canadian snipers using the weapons making shots at over 3.5 kilometers.

The TAC-50 is also used by the Navy SEALs under the designation Mk 15.

3. Remington MSR

The Remington Defense MSR won the US Special Operation Command’s Precision Sniper Rifle contract. Like most other rifles here, it’s a multi-caliber rifle capable of shooting calibers up to .338 Lapua and features plenty of rail space for accessories and an adjustable and folding stock.

It beat out the Sako TRG-42, Accuracy International AX338, Barrett MRAD, and Blaser R93 for the contract, though the exact reasons why have yet to be revealed. The MSR is slightly more modular compared to the TRG-42 and AX338 as it accepts any AR-15 pistol grip, though it shares this feature with the Barrett M98B.

4. Sako TRG M10

Another rifle that competed in the PSR contract, the Finnish Sako TRG has seen better success in being adopted across Europe. The rifle is a known favorite of elite Russian units, who prefer it to domestic Russian rifles.

As with the other rifles on this list, the TRG M10, features sub-MOA accuracy, adjustable stocks, and detachable magazines.

5. Barrett MRAD

While the MRAD lost the PSR contract, SOCOM later decided to purchase the MRAD anyways under the new moniker of Advanced Sniper Rifle, or ASR. The primary difference between the ASR contract and the earlier PSR contract is the addition of a new caliber, the .300 PRC, which has superior ballistics in some ways compared to earlier dedicated sniper cartridges.

Norway, New Zealand, and Israel all use the MRAD as well.

Sniper rifles are a relatively stagnant technology, and it should come as no surprise that all rifles on this list look relatively alike, with free floated barrels, negative space rails, detachable magazines, and folding/adjustable stocks. There are plenty more rifles not on here that have seen more limited adoption that look very similar, including the B&T APR, PGM 338, IWI Dan,  and OBR SM Tarnów Bor.

The primary innovations in the field of long-range shooting have come in bullet and optic technology rather than in the rifles themselves, so the race to win a contract often comes down to who can provide the better after-purchase support, and who can build the rifle to accept the latest hot cartridge that a military may want.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues. This article first appeared in 2019.

Image: Wikimedia.

Richard Douglas

Syrian Civil War, Syria

Depending on how one interprets the United States’s actions in Syria, this is either part of a tradition of proxy wars between these countries, or a one-sided conflict between the United States and Russia.

Here's What You Need to Know: The United States has only provided indirect support to various factions through weapons, logistics, and military support. Russia ostensibly entered the war strictly to fight ISIS, but these claims have been criticized by many, including the U.S. government.

As the Syrian Civil War reaches its eleventh year, Bashar al-Assad is still in power as president of the Syrian Arab Republic. Syria has been backed by Russia since 2015, while the United States has provided logistical and military support to various groups fighting Assad’s regime since 2013. Commentators have been calling this conflict a proxy war for years, arguing that both countries are vying for control of the Middle East. While it is true that U.S. and Russian influence and interests have shaped this conflict, a counterargument is that these vary and sometimes America’s actual level of involvement in the conflict is overstated. The Syrian Civil War is one of the most complex and important conflicts of the twenty-first century that could not possibly be explained thoroughly in just a few pages. However, a brief explanation of what is going on in Syria can help readers begin to make up their minds about whether or not the Syrian Civil War is a proxy war between the United States and Russia.

For a decade now, Syria has been engulfed in a bloody civil war that has directly or indirectly involved many world powers. It is an extremely complex war and many Americans have little to no idea about what is actually happening there. But it’s important to be at least passingly familiar with what’s going on to understand the nature of American and Russian involvement in the conflict, and why some people refer to it as a proxy war. In 2011, the Arab Spring led to an armed revolt in Syria, escalating into open conflict between the Syrian Arab Republic (Syrian government) and the Interim Government (Syrian Opposition: various groups fighting the government that do not necessarily have any alliance with each other, and are in fact sometimes openly fighting one another). This political turbulence resulted in a region in northeastern Syria known as Rojava declaring themselves an autonomous region. This extreme destabilization in Syria made it the perfect place for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, to gain a stronghold. So by the time the United States and Russia got involved, the conflict had already developed into a four-sided conflict, with each faction having a network of supporting countries and organizations with various and sometimes conflicting interests.

Meanwhile, tensions between the United States and Russia were heating up as a result of the Ukraine Crisis and Syria was the perfect place for tensions to flare up in the form of a proxy war. A proxy war, for readers who don’t happen to know, is when two rival countries fight each other indirectly by providing support to opposite factions in a different war, usually, one happening in a smaller country where the countries fighting the proxy war have colonial interests. There were many proxy wars fought between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War including the Congo Crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War, Cambodian Civil War, and Angolan Civil War. If the Syrian Civil War is a proxy war between the United States and Russia, it is just the latest in a long tradition of such wars.

Russia has been directly involved in the Syrian Civil War since 2015, and unlike America, they have directly entered the war. The United States has only provided indirect support to various factions through weapons, logistics, and military support. Russia ostensibly entered the war strictly to fight ISIS, but these claims have been criticized by many, including the U.S. government. The U.S. government insists that Russia has launched targeted airstrikes at non-Islamic State groups that oppose Assad’s regime.

Russia has a vested interest in keeping Assad’s regime in power because stability in the region is important to Russian interests. Syria is the home of Russia’s only remaining military base outside of the former Soviet Union. This is a naval port called Tartus, and this port helps ensure that Russia has access to the Mediterranean Sea. It’s one of Russia’s most strategically important military outposts. 

Additionally, Russia has an interest in containing U.S. influence in the region. Tensions between the U.S. and Syria have been high for years, even before the civil war. In 2002 Syria was added to the U.S.’s “Axis of Evil” list that included North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and Iran. Regime change in Syria could lead to a new regime that is friendlier with the U.S. This would both give the U.S. more influence in the Middle East, and it could potentially threaten Tartus.

The United States has been indirectly involved in the conflict since 2013, after conflicting reports that Assad was using chemical weapons on his own citizens. Like Russia, The U.S. ostensibly entered the war to fight ISIS. However, the U.S. has stayed in the region after ISIS’s declared defeat, and has provided support to Rojava and other groups that oppose Assad’s regime. The United States has a vested interest in forcing regime change in Syria, as the stability of the Syrian Arab Republic is strategically important for the United States. Forcing a regime change in Syria can contain Russian involvement in the Middle East, thereby increasing American influence in the region.

That said, those same sources calling the Syrian Civil War a proxy war also admit that the United States does not necessarily appear fully committed to forcing regime change in Syria. These sources argue that the United States became less interested in the war after they declared victory over ISIS in 2017. The Trump administration had little desire to stay in Syria after ISIS was defeated, despite the conflict raging on. Former President Trump’s eventual decision to leave Syria was met with criticism from the left and right and even spurred General Mattis to resign as Secretary of Defense. Critics say that the United States abandoned the Kurdish forces who had been some of America’s strongest allies in their fight against ISIS. Former President Trump’s decision to abruptly withdraw troops from Syria left these Kurdish forces vulnerable to a Turkish invasion, which some are calling a genocide.

A decade into the conflict, the Syrian Civil War still has no end in sight. The complexity of the war and strategic importance of Syria has attracted the influence of many foreign interests, particularly the United States and Russia. These rival countries are considered to support different sides in this war, eliciting memories of Cold War-era proxy wars. Depending on how one interprets the United States’s actions during this war, this is either part of a tradition of proxy wars between these countries, or a one-sided conflict between the United States and Russia. Regardless, the Syrian Civil War is not going to end anytime soon, and it will go down as one of the bloodiest and most brutal conflicts of the twenty-first century.

Richard Douglas writes on firearms, defense and security issues. He is the founder and editor of Scopes Field, and a columnist at The National Interest, 1945, Daily Caller and other publications.

This article first appeared in April 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Richard Douglas

Espionage, United States

The United States and the Soviet Union had to think outside the box during the Cold War and from that, we got some fascinating technology.

Here's What You Need to Remember: The Cold War delivered some fascinating technology and one of the most intriguing eras in American history.

The Cold War is widely regarded as the “golden age” of spycraft and espionage, and for good reason too. As tensions rose between the United States and the Soviet Union, there was a race to highly advanced technology for the time period. As a result, new technological heights were being reached at an astounding rate. Massive nuclear devices and space travel come to mind but there were new methods of gathering intel and taking out targets being developed as well.

The United States had to get creative (and maybe a little weird) with its gadgets to maintain cover and secrecy. Perhaps the strangest was the Rectal CIA Toolkit.

Many smirk as soon as this tool is mentioned, but the truth of the matter is that it could be a true lifesaver. The purpose was to be a discreet kit that could help agents escape if they were discovered and captured. Inside the capsule was an assortment of tools like miniature saw blades and chisels designed to cut ropes. Many even included drill bits.

On the darker side of things, agents were provided a couple of different ways to terminate their own lives. It must be understood that not only was it a matter of national security, but also a way to avoid the horrors that awaited agents thrown into captivity. The method made most popular by Hollywood was the faux tooth that contained a cyanide capsule. Bite down hard enough and it was all over. Along the same line was a pair of glasses that ended things the same way. A poison pill was hidden in the temple tip. All the agent had to do was casually remove his glasses and bite down on the end.

When going on the offensive agents could keep a blade hidden in the unsuspecting places. Even a trained eye could miss it. A single coin would never draw attention in a pocket full of change, even if the person was patted down and searched. An agent could split a coin revealing a razor-sharp knife ready to use on an unsuspecting target.

As for gathering intel? The CIA had several answers for that too, but two stand out from the rest. Like virtually every tool used in the Cold War, the Shoe Transmitter had the express purpose of being unnoticeable. Inside the heel of the shoe were a transmitter and microphone. Intelligence officials could listen in on everything being said to American diplomats outfitted with the shoe. Some cold war antics became somewhat outlandish as well with a strange device called a pigeon camera. It is exactly what it sounds like too. This camera was strapped to a pigeon to gather intel, its primary function was to obtain aerial footage of locations that were critical to informed espionage.

The United States and the Soviet Union had to think outside the box during the Cold War and from that, we got some fascinating technology and one of the most intriguing eras in American history.

Richard Douglas writes on firearms, defense and security issues. He is the founder and editor of Scopes Field, and a columnist at The National Interest, 1945, Daily Caller and other publications.

This article was first published in April 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters.

Sebastien Roblin

THAAD, Europe

Eurosam will have to contend with the more established THAAD system and the temptation to buy American to score points with Washington

Here’s What You Need to Remember: A European counterpart to THAAD would be useful and desirable in many quarters, particularly to counter new threats from Russia and Iran

Ballistic missiles are making a comeback in the twenty-first century because they give countries like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia the ability to strike targets hundreds or thousands of miles away without having to expose vulnerable warplanes to interception. The precision allowed by modern guidance systems allows even non-nuclear missiles to deliver highly-deadly attacks against airbases, fuel and ammunition depots, and even moving aircraft carriers. 

Therefore, the ability to intercept ballistic missiles is also growing in importance. But surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) designed to shoot-down aircraft struggle to hit missiles flying many times faster and higher. And the further a ballistic missile can go, the faster and higher it must fly, and the harder it becomes to intercept. 

The United States has developed a spectrum Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABMs)s, from the Patriot PAC-3 MSE which can intercept tactical ballistic missiles, the high-flying THAADS and naval SM-3 Block II missiles which can counter short to intermediate-range systems, and GMD interceptors in Alaska that can tackle intercontinental-range missiles.

Several European countries have caught up with lower-tier ABMs by developing a versatile SAM of which arguably exceeds the Patriot missile in capability—and may evolve a similar capability to THAADs.

The Aster missile—named after the Greek word for “Star”—was conceived in the 1990s by Eurosam, a consortium of MBDA and Thales, to defend warships from enemy aircraft and sea-skimming cruise missiles at short range. Today, Aster missiles can be found in the launch cells of warships including the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and France’s Horizon-class frigates.

In the 2000s, Eurosam began developing an enlarged Aster missile with four times the range to provide area air defense. This new Aster 30 not only supplements the short-range Aster 15 variant at sea, but is also deployed on a land-based launcher, the SAMP/T (French: “Surface-to-Air Medium-Range/Land-based”), replacing dated I-Hawk and Crotale SAMs

The latest Aster-30 Block 1NT model can intercept aircraft up to seventy-five miles away, and can fly fast and high enough (maximum 65,000 feet) to intercept tactical and short-range ballistic missiles, as well as low-flying drones, cruise missiles and aircraft.

How SAMP/T Works

A SAMP/T battery has three truck-mounted elements: an Arabel multi-function radar, a command-and-control vehicle, and four or six launch vehicles each carrying eight boxy vertical launch canisters with a missile inside ready for launch. The road-mobile battery takes forty-five minutes to set up on average, with launchers often dispersed a few miles away from the radar. A single battery can be manned by as few as fourteen personnel.

The three-dimensional X-band Arabel radar completes one rotation per second and is frequency-agile, allowing it to resist jamming and other electronic countermeasures. It boasts 360-degree coverage, meaning it can defend against attacks from any angle, can track up to one hundred targets and direct up to sixteen missiles simultaneously to engage them.

Though Arabel’s basic search radius of thirty-seven miles is unimpressive, it can use a Link-16 datalink to connect to another radar—say, a longer-range ground-based radar, or an orbiting AWACS aircraft—to “focus” its scan, allowing it to double its range to seventy-five miles versus high-flying targets. However, due to the constraints imposed by intervening terrain, the maximum engagement range for low-flying targets remains thirty-one miles for aircraft and twenty-one miles for missiles.

The SAMP/T battery’s command unit transmits coordinates from the radar transmit to the missile launchers. Each truck can launch all eight of its 4.9-meter-long Aster-30 missiles in just ten seconds. Within four more seconds, the missiles’ solid-fuel rocket boosters accelerate the half-ton missile to Mach 4.5—nearly a mile per second—before being jettisoned as a second-stage booster activates.

Initially, the Aster is guided by an internal inertial guidance system, but the command vehicle transmits updates on the target’s position via an uplink, allowing the supersonic weapon to adjust its trajectory should the target change course.

As the Aster closes in on its target, it begins using an active Ka-band AD4A doppler radar seeker in its nose for guidance. Four side-facing gas thrusters perform ultra-rapid “side-strafing” corrections to ensure a near-perfect intercept. Though Aster missiles have directly impacted their targets in tests, they also carry a small thirty-three-pound proximity-fused warhead for added punch. 

You can see the engagement process visualized in this video.

In around a half-dozen tests, Asters have shot down a diverse spectrum of targets including supersonic sea-skimming cruise missiles, jet-powered drones, and high-flying Israeli Black Sparrow ballistic target missiles designed to emulate a Scud-B.

Aster Versus Patriot

The Italian Air Force currently deploys three SAMP/T regiments with two batteries of six launchers each, mounted on Atra 8x8 trucks. In 2016, Rome deployed two units to Turkey to provide air defense coverage of its border with Syria.

The French Air Force has seven squadrons of “Mambas,” each including two batteries with four launchers each. Five batteries are deployed to defend key French air bases from attack—notably including Saint-Dizier-Robinson, which hosts France’s Rafale nuclear strike squadrons. The remaining two batteries are reserved to support French ground forces deployed abroad.

The Aster 30 seems to straddle the capabilities of both the Patriot anti-aircraft PAC-2 and shorter-range missile-defense oriented PAC-3 missiles in one package. According to one survey of contemporary air defense missiles, the SAMP/T is less expensive at $500 million for a battery and $2 million per Aster-30 missile. By comparison, a PAC-2 and PAC-3 reportedly costs around $800 million to $1 billion per battery, and $2 or $3 million per missile.

On the downside, the SAMP/T seems more dependent on external radars to allow it to “see” far enough to exploit its maximum range, and it has a slightly shorter maximum engagement range than the PAC-2.

Already Romania, Poland and Sweden have considered the SAMP/T—and chosen to buy Patriot systems instead. One factor may be that the latter is combat-tested and the Aster is not. But more importantly, these buyers may feel that Patriot missiles come with the added value of currying favor with Washington, thereby “buying” a security guarantee from the United States.

So far, the SAMP/T’s sole export order has come from Singapore, which reportedly received three batteries and 300 Aster missiles in 2018 and 2019. Motivated by the use of Aster missiles by the Singapore Navy, the Singapore Air Force has networked its SAMP/Ts with longer-range American AN/FPS-117 and Swedish Giraffe radars, demonstrating how the Aster can be mated with more powerful sensors.

Currently, Canada and Switzerland are weighing purchasing the Aster versus the Patriot. Azerbaijan is also rumored to have purchased land-based Asters, and Turkey has reached a preliminary deal to study license-building the Aster missile, but whether the financing and political goodwill to make it happen is difficult to foresee following Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems.

Eurosam is working on an Aster Block 2 missile designed to fly nearly four times as high at over 230,000 feet. This new hit-to-kill exo-atmospheric interceptor would be capable of smacking down hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles traveling at seven times the speed of sound. 

The Block 2 would amount to a European version of THAAD, except with 360 degree instead of 120 degrees coverage. Notably, Block 2 is described as capable of intercepting “3000-kilometer range missiles,” which lies at the definitional intersection of a “medium-range” and “intermediate-range” ballistic missile. Notably, the collapse of the INF treaty has lifted the ban on Russian deployment of such weapons.

Thus, a European counterpart to THAAD would be useful and desirable in many quarters, particularly to counter new threats from Russia and Iran. But once again, Eurosam will have to contend with the more established THAAD system and the temptation to buy American to score points with Washington.

Sébastien Roblin writes on the technical, historical and political aspects of international security and conflict for publications including The National Interest, NBC News, Forbes.com and War is Boring. He holds a Master’s degree from Georgetown University and served with the Peace Corps in China. You can follow his articles on Twitter.

This article first appeared in September 2019 and is being republished due to reader interest. 

Image: Reuters.