Diplomacy & Crisis News

Turkey under the Islamist rule of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is back as a world power. What’s more, if the decades of rhetoric from Erdogan’s Islamist political party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), is at all an indication of intent, then the rebirth of the Ottoman Empire, with Erdogan as its new sultan, is at hand in the Middle East. 

Using Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is a hodgepodge of former jihadists (from terror groups like Al Nusra Front and even ISIS, for example) who had been fighting in Syria and have now been rebranded as “moderate Syrian rebels,” Turkey was able to force the ouster of Syria’s Alawite dictator, Bashar al-Assad. 

This move by Turkey, in turn, has placed both the Russian Federation and its ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran, on their hind legs. These moves by Turkey risk fundamentally undermining Israeli security in the long run (because Turkey has vowed to destroy the predominantly Jewish state of Israel). 

All this has been in service to the idea of an Ottoman imperial restoration.

As if that wasn’t enough, Turkey is now making major plays to ensnare the Sunni Arab states, notably the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), into its growing orbit. One of the key ways that Ankara is looking to spread influence over the Sunni Arab states (those likeliest to be opposed to any kind of restoration of an ethnic Turkish Sunni empire in the Middle East) is to sell advanced weapons and platforms to the Sunni Arabs. 

Specifically, Riyadh intends to purchase around 100 of the Turkish-built fighter (TF) Kaan. 

The TF-Kaan is not just another warplane. It is a serious upgrade for the Turkish Air Force (as well as any air force purchasing the export model). TF-Kaan was designed to replace Turkey’s aging F-16 Fighting Falcon fourth-generation warplanes with indigenously built, fifth-generation planes.

Indeed, the real reason behind Turkey even building its TF-Kaan warplanes was that the United States officially kicked Turkey out of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter program. Needing to ensure they did not lose capabilities as their F-16s aged out, Turkey opted to place its faith in its own capabilities. Thus far, its gambit has worked out. The Kaan is built by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI). The warplane is on par with the F-35 that Turkey was denied from purchasing. 

The Kaan is 69 feet long and has a wingspan of 46 feet.

Since the TF-Kaan is a fifth-gen bird, it has stealth features, making it harder to detect by enemy radar, just like the American fifth-generation planes possess. There are blended and faceted surfaces as well as specialized skin coatings to ensure the plane is undetected. 

This warplane comes with an Active, Electronically-Scanned Array (AESA) radar system and, most interestingly, the Turkish Air Force plans to have these planes riding along with advanced drones for additional layers of protection and to serve as a force multiplier while in combat. A secure datalink will ensure seamless, uninterrupted connectivity between the cockpit and the drones.

What makes this such an interesting component for the TF-Kaan is that the Americans are seemingly refusing to place similar systems on their F-22A Raptors or their F-35s. Instead, the Pentagon is demanding that Congress pay gobs of tax dollars to build entirely new sixth-generation warplanes that will support the “Loyal Wingman” drone program. 

The more resourceful Turks are happy to ensure their fifth-generation planes come equipped with a “Loyal Wingman”-type drone system.

Given its multirole mission, Turkey designed these planes to carry a multiplicity of armaments, including air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, guided bombs, and even miniature explosives, according to The Defense Post. These various armaments all fit nicely inside internal weapons bays, increasing the plane’s stealth features.

Twin General Electric turbofan engines power these birds, allowing for a top cruising speed of Mach 1.8 (1,381 miles per hour) and it can fly up to an altitude of 55,775 feet. The plane itself looks almost like the American F-35. 

Like Turkey, the Saudis had wanted to be part of America’s F-35 program. Yet, the Pentagon was taking its sweet time in approving Riyadh’s request to join the program, prompting the KSA government to look to Turkey. 

An agreement between the U.S. government and that of Israel stipulates that the Americans must sell systems that are “superior in capability” to the Israelis compared to the systems that America sells to Israel’s neighbors. Currently, Israel possesses a potent F-35 variant, the F-35I Adir. There is concern that the Americans giving Saudi Arabia access to the F-35 program would deprive Israel of the qualitative edge their armed forces have worked so hard to achieve.

So, Riyadh is looking to Ankara. And Turkey is only more than pleased to oblige. This move will create deeper linkages between the two Sunni Muslim powers of Turkey and Saudi Arabia and may lead to a far darker geopolitical outcome for Israel, as the tiny Jewish democracy struggles to restore the security it had lost on October 7. 

The TF-Kaan, therefore, is more than another warplane. This system is a symbol of Turkey’s growing international pull and its very real status as a rising power in the Middle East.

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: Spiffy Digital Creative / Shutterstock.com

The U.S.-made F-16 Fighting Falcon hasn't been able to turn the tide for Ukraine in its war against Russia, but the multirole all-weather fighter has increased Kyiv's defensive capabilities significantly. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian Air Force claimed that last month a pilot shot down six missiles in a single sortie.

"For the first time in the history of the Fighting Falcon, an F-16 fighter jet destroyed six Russian cruise missiles in one combat mission," the Ukrainian Air Force Command said in a post on Facebook.

According to Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yurii Ihnat, the action took place on December 13, 2024, when Moscow's forces launched 200 drones and 94 missiles at targets in Ukraine.

"They say that even Americans couldn't believe you did it," Ihnat added, while the post explained that the pilot – who has not been identified – closed in on a group of cruise missiles. Despite their electronic warfare (EW) countermeasures, the pilot was able to down one pair of the Russian weapons with his medium-range missiles, while he struck another pair with short-range missiles.

Two more missiles were shot down with the F-16's cannon, believed to be the first time it was accomplished. As Newsweek reported, while the Ukrainian aviators have been trained "to shoot down missiles with aircraft cannons in simulations," it had not been previously carried out.

"At first I was looking for a target at the bottom - nothing. Then I reached the altitude, raised the radar and saw her. Did everything as taught instructors in the USA, as worked on a gym. A few cannon turns - and a blast... then there is one more! Detonation again," the pilot claimed.

The destruction was confirmed by Ukraine's Air Force Command.

"Based on objective control, we have one hundred percent confirmation that for the first time in history in anti-air combat, an American fighter F-16 shoots down six winged missiles, two of them [from] an air cannon," Ihnat added.

Gunfight Over Ukraine

According to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, maker of the F-16 Gatling Gun System, the 20mm weapon "features the M61A1 six-barrel Gatling gun and a linkless ammunition feed system. The M61A1 provides up to 10 times the reliability of single-barrel guns, firing at 6,000 shots per minute and placing a controlled dispersion of projectiles in the path of the target. The double-ended linkless ammunition feed system incorporates a compact lightweight composite rotary ammunition drum to store unfired and fired ammunition."

The Fighting Falcon is able to carry 511 rounds of 20mm ammunition, and given the high rate of fire, pilots must employ short bursts.

More F-16s Coming

Kyiv is set to receive as many as ninety American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon multirole combat aircraft – and it is reported that around two dozen of the fighters are now in service. Multiple NATO members including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway have pledged to provide the aircraft, which are being replaced by more advanced fighters – notably, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

The first F-16s arrived in August, and the fighters were quickly put into action.

However, even as additional aircraft are headed to Ukraine, there have been concerns that pilot training is already being rushed, and even further abridged to get more aircraft in the sky. It would appear that at least one Ukrainian aviator took all of the lessons to heart by downing the six missiles, including the two with the 20mm autocannon.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it had succeeded in downing a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-27 (NATO reporting name Flanker). The ministry further claimed to have shot down multiple High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) rockets and several dozen drones since the start of the New Year.

In a statement posted on the Telegram social messaging app, the Kremlin put Kyiv's tally of battlefield losses at 651 fixed-wing aircraft, 283 helicopters, and 39,144 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

"Air defense systems shot down a Su-27 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force, six rockets of the U.S.-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, and ninety-seven aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles," the ministry said in its social media post but did not state where or how the advanced multirole was shot down.

Kyiv has not acknowledged the loss of the Soviet-era fighter or confirmed the total losses. Moscow's claims have been previously seen as exaggerated.

The Su-27 in the Crosshairs

The first designs of what was to become the Su-27 began in the Soviet Union in the early 1970s, and the aircraft was initially envisioned as an air superiority fighter/interceptor, in essence, Moscow's answer to the F-15 Eagle. However, development of the warplane was slow going, and the prototype didn't make its maiden flight until May 1977. Moreover, in its initial form, the T-10 prototype aircraft displayed several serious deficiencies – so much so that a complete redesign was required.

It only reemerged as the radically reworked T-10S-1 in 1981.

The aircraft finally reached series production in 1982 as a single-seat multirole fighter, receiving the designation Su-27 (NATO reporting name Flanker-B). A two-seater variant, the Su-27UB (NATO reporting name Flanker-C), was introduced two years later. By the end of the Cold War, around 400 Su-27s in both versions were produced for service with the Soviet Air Force. It was believed it would be suited to engaging U.S. Air Force B-52 and B-1 bombers.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, the Su-27 remained the backbone of the Russian Air Force throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, with many of the aircraft undergoing mid-life upgrades and enhancements, which transformed them into the re-designated Su-27SM.

Despite being touted as one of its most capable warbirds in the latter stages of the Cold War, Moscow opted not to deploy the Su-27 to Afghanistan.

As Brent Eastwood previously wrote for The National Interest, "The Su-27, surprisingly, has seen little combat. Export models have flown in the Angolan civil war and the Ethiopia-Eritrea civil war, both sides of the current Ukrainian frozen conflict, and in Syria. The air-to-air combat happened during the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict when an Ethiopian Su-27 downed an Eritrean MiG-29."

Until the war in Ukraine, the Su-27 had zero air-to-air combat losses – proving if you don't use it, you won't lose it!

Ukraine's Su-27 – How Few Remain?

At the start of the war nearly three years ago, it was believed that the Ukrainian Air Force had around fifty Su-27s – inherited following the dissolution of the Soviet Union – still in service. That number is reported to be down to just a couple dozen now.

Kyiv has gone to great lengths to keep its Su-27s flying, cannibalizing parts from damaged or otherwise non-airworthy fighters, while it recently modified the aircraft to carry American-made GPS-guided glide bombs. According to David Axe, writing for Forbes.com just last month, multiple Su-27s were used in the Kursk Oblast to lob the ordnance onto Russian positions. However, the tactic, also seen in a post on social media, involved the fighters flying at a low altitude before dropping the bomb and immediately banking to avoid Russian air defenses.

That could explain the loss of one of the fighters on Thursday.

"This method­ to fly low, climb, release bombs, and retreat ­minimizes a warplane's exposure to enemy fire without seriously constraining a bomb's range. Released from high altitude, a GPS-guided GBU-39 might travel farther than sixty miles under its pop-out wings. But flying high in the plan [sic] view of enemy radars is dangerous for all but the stealthiest aircraft. A Su-27 isn't stealthy at all," wrote Axe.

Even with minimal exposure, one pilot's mistake and/or luck from the forces on the ground can result in a downed aircraft. That may have been the case with Ukraine's Flanker.

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

Image Credit: Shutterstock.

The Iranian-backed Houthi militant group in Yemen claimed on Monday that it had launched an attack on the United States Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75). It is the most recent claim that it had carried out a strike on a U.S. carrier in the region.

"Our forces conducted a special operation targeting the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman with two cruise missiles and four drones in the northern Red Sea as the US enemy was preparing to launch a major aerial attack on our country. The operation led to the failure of the attack," Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree said in a statement, as reported by Maritime Executive.

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) did not respond to the comments made by the Tehran-supported group, but acknowledged it has worked with partner forces to conduct operations in Iraq and Syria from December 30, 2024, to January 6, 2025.

In a statement on Monday, CENTCOM announced that as part of the ongoing Defeat ISIS (D-ISIS) campaign, U.S. and "Iraqi forces conducted multiple strikes in the Hamrin mountains of Iraq, targeting known ISIS locations. The operations served to disrupt and degrade ISIS' ability to plan, organize, and conduct attacks against civilians in the region, as well as U.S. citizens, allies, and partners throughout the region and beyond."

According to the reports, an ISIS attack cell leader was captured in Syria.

Business as Usual for USS Harry S. Truman

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) has been operating in CENTCOM's area of responsibility since December 14. The warship departed Naval Air Station Norfolk in September of last year, and while it was announced it would be deployed to the Middle East, the HSTCSG first took part in joint NATO operations in the Arctic before heading to the Mediterranean and then transiting the Suez Canal.

The carrier is supported by Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 28, which includes the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64); and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, USS Stout (DDG 55) and USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109).

HSTCSG was last deployed to CENTCOM's area of responsibility in March 2020, but the U.S. Navy has continued to rotate its nuclear-powered supercarriers to the region since October 2023 – in response to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and to deter aggression from Iran and its regional proxies. The situation has gotten increasingly complex since the fall of the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad.

On High Alert

The U.S. Navy's warships remain on high alert while deployed to the region. None of the service's vessels have taken damage, but in October 2023, the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Carney (DDG-64) engaged in a 10-hour battle with Houthi militants, marking the most intense combat by a U.S. Navy vessel since World War II.

The intensity of the deployment has resulted in some mistakes being made. Last month, a U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet was shot down in a "friendly fire incident" involving USS Gettysburg. The aircraft was preparing to land on the carrier, and another fighter recorded a near miss.

A War of the Words

In addition to countering Houthi missiles and drones, the U.S. Navy has had to counter an ongoing misinformation campaign directed by the group. It claimed it had shot down the F/A-18 Super Hornet last month, but also made repeated allegations that it had struck—and even seriously damaged—U.S. carriers.

In June, the Houthis announced it had successfully carried out a missile and drone strike that seriously damaged USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in the Red Sea. The group further declared victory after the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) departed the region and returned to the United States in November.

The Pentagon has attempted to counter the false narratives presented by the Houthis, but their claims are regularly reported as factual in the Middle East, and even more ominously, further abroad. While it is almost expected that Iranian state media would report on the Houthi claims, it should be noted that this week, Chinese media outlets, including the Xinhua News Agency, have also run stories that cited the media statements from the Houthis.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

In the last seven months of war, the Russian forces have lost nearly as many men as they did in the prior two years combined.

Under a new attritional strategy, the Russian military, paramilitary units, and pro-Russian forces have lost around 300,000 men killed or wounded. To make up for the losses, the Kremlin is offering generous incentives to prospective recruits.

Incentives for Military Recruits

“In late November 2024, Russia passed a law that would allow personnel who signed up after 01 December 2024 to have their loan debt written off,” British Defence Intelligence stated in its latest estimate of the conflict.  

This write-off would cover debt of up to 10 million rubles, or around $94,500, and would be applicable to the spouses of Russian troops. But this isn’t the only financial incentive geared to prospective military recruits.

“This is in addition to the loan repayment holidays for the Russian servicemen program. The independent Russian media organisation Mediazona reports that 411,000 repayment holidays for mortgages and personal loans have been taken up since October 2022,” the report stated.

These generous incentives have one goal: bolster the ranks of the Russian military without forcing the Kremlin to launch another mobilization that could hurt the credibility of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Russia’s financial incentives to military recruits are almost certainly intended to secure sufficient replacements for their steadily increasing casualties, now totaling over 760,000 killed and injured, and averaging 1,523 a day in November 2024. The incentives are also almost certainly intended to reduce the potential for Russia to have to enact further mobilisations, which are seen by Russian leadership as both damaging public support for the war, and raising the risk of further detrimental large-scale emigration,” British Defence Intelligence assessed.

When the Russian government commenced the first round of mobilization since the start of the war in the fall of 2022, approximately one million Russian males of military age fled the country to avoid being called up.

300,000 Losses in Seven Months

As we have analyzed here at The National Interest, the Russian military is pursuing an attritional strategy that hinges on large numbers of troops, and, consequently casualties. As Russia lacks the troop quality, maneuver warfare capability, or necessary advanced weapon systems, the Russian military leadership has opted to fight simply by hurling hundreds of thousands of troops against the Ukrainian defenses.

The strategy has been paying off. In recent months, the Russian forces have advanced several miles into Ukrainian territory, capturing important battlefield points in the process, including Chasiv Yar, Vuhledar, and Kurakhove. However, the cost has been high. From May to the present, Russian forces lost almost 300,000 men killed or wounded. From February 24, 2022, when the large-scale invasion began, to May 2024, the Russian forces had lost approximately 500,000. So, in about seven months, and under the new attritional strategy, the Russian military lost almost as many troops as it had lost in over two years of fighting.

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

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

North Korea’s threat to their neighbors to the south, indeed much of the rest of the region, is often closely associated with their nuclear weapons program. If we’re lucky, some analyst will remind us that North Korea’s biological and chemical weapons program is far older, more complex, and expansive than the North Korean nuclear weapons arsenal.

But perhaps an even more significant—indeed, persistent and growing—threat to South Korea comes from North Korea’s immense artillery.

Specifically, North Korea's Koksan M-1989 170mm Self-Propelled Howitzer cannon is a serious threat to the safety of South Korea. With the world’s largest artillery network arrayed just across the border from South Korea, Western analysts had better start sounding the alarm about North Korea’s artillery far more than even Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

Understanding the Koksan

The M-1989 Koksan is an evolution of an earlier North Korean artillery model, the M-1978. The Koksan features a 170mm gun-mounted on a tracked chassis, enhancing both the maneuverability and operability of the weapon system across the hilly and overall rough Korean terrain. The gun itself features a gigantic 8-meter barrel, which holds a record as one of the longest barrels of any self-propelled artillery system in the world.

Standard ammunition shells for the Koksan can reach as far as 25 miles away. North Korea’s Koksan, however, can fire rockets as well as conventional artillery shells. These rockets can reach 37 miles away.

One of the key drawbacks to this system is its relative slow rate of fire. It can only launch one to two rounds every five minutes due to the large size and complexity of the ammunition involved. Of course, this weakness is surmounted by the fact that North Korea has a layered network of heavy artillery systems deployed to make up for the slow rate of fire of systems like the Koksan. Further, the M-1989 carries 12 rounds of ammunition onboard.

Like so much North Korean weapons technology, the M-1989 Koksan is based on old Soviet technology from the Cold War. Notably, the Soviet-made ATS-59 artillery tractor forms the basis of the Koksan. Although, the Koksan modified the old Soviet system to better handle the weight and recoil of the Koksan’s massive 170mm gun.

Some have even speculated that the Koksan was inspired by much older Soviet systems from the 1950s, with others going as far to say that Pyongyang may have adapted the system from old German Wehrmacht artillery, as North Korea did with when they copied the old Wehrmacht 17cm Kanone 18.

Another downside to the M-1989 is its open configuration, which makes the system vulnerable to direct attacks. Most artillery systems in use in the world have some level of protection for the system itself and the crew manning it. But that is not the case for North Korea’s M-1989.

What would one expect from a regime, such as North Korea, that holds one of the world’s lowest rankings in terms of human rights?

The M-1989 Koksan Combat History

The Koksan has seen combat in different hotspots around the world, notably by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. North Korea’s Koksan provided long-range bombardment for the Iranians, who were fighting to stop Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army from conquering Iran. 

Iran used this system for counter-battery fire at extremely long ranges, placing it well beyond the reach of enemy artillery, giving the Iranian military an advantage over the otherwise more advanced Iraqi Army.

Interestingly, as part of their close association, the Koksan has been deployed to Russia for use in their war against neighboring Ukraine. The unique 170mm caliber of the Koksan presents logistical challenges for Russia, since the weapon does not align with standard Russian artillery calibers, meaning that North Korea must supply large quantities of specialized ammunition for the Koksans in Russia.

Then again, that works to the favor of the North Koreans, who make gobs of money off selling the M-1989 Koksan and its special ammunition to Russia as well as get to perfect their defense industrial base.

South Korea Needs to Be Prepared for the Koksan

The M-1989 Koksan and its unique capabilities prove that the North Korean artillery threat to the South is real. At a moment’s notice, these systems could be activated and used to decimate major South Korean cities. The loss of life would be catastrophic. 

Despite some of its weaknesses, this is probably one of North Korea’s most important weapons—and the South Koreans had better quickly develop countermeasures for this system before it’s too late. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Last month, the People's Republic of China appeared to have leapfrogged the United States in military aviation technology, as a previously undisclosed aircraft recently made its maiden flight. The aircraft in question has been described as a "next-generation" or "sixth-generation" fighter. Though no official designation is known, military analysts have dubbed it the J-36.

"BIG: China's next-generation (6th-gen) fighter jet made its first flight today," the open-source military hardware analyst Clash Report wrote on X on December 26, while sharing images of the large tail-less aircraft.

A video, recorded near the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation's (CAC's) headquarters in Chengdu, Sichuan province, and shared online showed the three-engine aircraft being trailed by the fifth-generation Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.

China's Fifth-Gen Leap Forward

Beijing typically holds its cards close to its chest, but in November offered a flight demonstration of its fifth-generation Mighty Dragon at the 15th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai (aka Airshow China) and unveiled the two-seat variant, the J-20S. That latter is the only twin-seat fifth-gen fighter currently in service.

In addition, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense released teaser images on social media of the Shenyang J-35A, its carrier-based fifth-generation fighter, in advance of the airshow. The twin-engine, all-weather, stealth fighter aircraft on social media took part in a brief aerial performance. It was a short debut for the highly-anticipated fighter, and the demonstration certainly left the audience (and analysts) wanting to see more.

With both the J-20 and the J-35, China has become only the second country after the United States to operate two distinct stealth fighters.

The J-36: What We Know

The appearance of the J-36 would suggest China has made a great leap forward with its military aviation program.

The fact that the video was purportedly recorded near CAC's HQ seems to narrow down the maker. Yet, the capabilities and even function of the aircraft are simply unknown.

As The Diplomat reported, "The leadup to the J-36's emergence holds uncanny similarities to the emergence of the J-20, nearly 14 years ago to the day, showing that history does indeed rhyme. Both were preceded by significant periods of credible rumors and increasingly granular predictions by the Chinese language PLA watching community," adding, "Some have remarked that the date for the J-36's maiden flight might seek to commemorate the December 26 birthday of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic of China."

Though other milestones indeed occurred on that day, it must be noted that if the aircraft were to be met with disaster such as a crash, it wouldn't be a good day for it to occur. That could put into question whether this was in fact the maiden flight of the J-36 or perhaps simply its first public flight.

The Sixth-Generation Race is Well Underway

The United States Air Force has acknowledged that it has conducted test flights of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) manned fighter, one component of the sixth-generation system of systems that could also include unmanned drones that serve as loyal wingmen. However, earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force had suggested it would press pause on the NGAD due to cost concerns and fears the technology could be outdated too quickly.

Even as the Air Force has taken a breather, the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX program is now reported to be moving forward.

There are multiple other six-gen programs in the works – including the Global Air Combat Programme (GACP), a joint partnership between the UK, Italy, and Japan; and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Air Combat System (FACS).

Russia's PAK DP – sometimes described as the MiG-41 – is also believed to be in the works, but as previously reportedly by Stavros Atlamazoglou for The National Interest, "skepticism surrounds the project due to past failures like the Su-57 Felon and T-14 Armata tank, both plagued by production and operational issues."

China may be on track to overtake Russia in aircraft design, which should be seen as a worry for Washington as well as its Indo-Pacific allies.

"The successful flight of China's 6th-gen fighter jet represents a new chapter in the global arms race," Army Recognition reported. "As other nations scramble to develop their own next-generation aircraft, the competition for air superiority is poised to intensify."

Meanwhile, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has claimed drones are the future when he suggested on social media only "idiots" are building manned fighters like the F-35. He may not be wrong, but it does appear that the military aviation world is still thinking about manned fighters right now.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

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

Image: Weibo / Creative Commons.

Ded Moroz, Russia's version of Father Christmas, generally delivers presents to children on New Year's rather than Christmas – and the Kremlin actually may have received its best gift from Uralvagonzavod. The producer of Russia's T-90M and T-72B3M main battle tanks (MBTs) announced last week that it delivered new batches of the vehicles to start the New Year.

"According to tradition, the tank builders decorated the vehicles from each batch in a New Year's style: a Russian flag was installed on the T-90M Proryv, and a New Year's tree was installed on the 'seventy-two'. Calendars with children's drawings dedicated to the upcoming 90th anniversary of the Uralvagonzavod trade union organization were also included in the tanks," the Russian state-owned conglomerate stated.

The firm further claimed that "production increased from month to month," while last November saw significant output of vehicles."

Upgraded Models

Uralvagonzavod further announced that the latest batch of MBTs have been upgraded based on experiences learned in the ongoing fighting in Ukraine. In total, more than one hundred "changes were made" to the tanks, and each has been outfitted with anti-drone nets, and equipped with "rubber-reinforced protection" – which were previously reported to be mats that cover the gaps between the turret and hulls.

The effectiveness of the mats has been questioned, but both sides have taken desperate measures to add protection from the first-person view (FPV) drones. However, the head of Uralvagonzavod has praised the modifications.

"A tank from early 2022 and a tank from late 2024 are, one might say, two different combat vehicles. For example, if we talk about the protection system, it did not anticipate many of the challenges that we faced literally from the first days of the Second Military Operation," explained General Director of JSC Concern Uralvagonzavod Alexander Potapov. "The corresponding modifications were immediately adopted, the designers worked day and night, and the plant workers promptly made changes to the products that were already being assembled in the workshop. This painstaking and responsible work of the plant workers was recognized by the eighth state award – the Order 'For Labor Valor.'"

Production Fails to Keep Pace With Losses

The Russian-based Uralvagonzavod did not announce how many respective T-72 and T-90s were delivered in the recent batches, but military analysts have questioned whether the production of new tanks can replace those lost on the battlefield.

According to a June 2024 report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 13 batches of T-90Ms had been delivered by that point.

"Reports from the Russian defence sector and think tanks suggest that company-sized batches of between 11–15 tanks are being delivered," IISS explained, putting the number "as high as 267 if all batches included 15 tanks." Obviously, additional batches have been delivered since that report was written, but if we conservatively round up the number to 300 T-90s, it still seems unlikely the production can keep pace with the current rate of attrition.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote earlier this month, "Ukrainian forces reportedly destroyed or damaged over 3,000 Russian tanks and almost 9,000 armored vehicles in 2024 as Russia continues to accrue vehicle losses that are likely unsustainable in the medium-term."

ISW added, "Russia's current armored vehicle and tank production rates indicate that such losses will likely be prohibitive over the longer term, particularly as Russia continues to dip into its Soviet-era stocks."

Those stockpiles are being depleted, while the antiquated tanks – notably the T-62s and earlier models – have shown to be ill-suited to the modern battlefield.

Thus, the latest batch of new MBTs should be seen as a much anticipated and appreciated gift to start the New Year, but whether a couple of dozen tanks (if even that many) will make enough of a difference for the Russians in 2025.

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

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The next two United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers – both of the Flight III – have officially been given names. USS Intrepid (DDG-145) and USS Robert Kerrey (DDG-146) will be respectively the 95th and 96th vessels of the class of destroyers, and both will be built at Huntington Ingalls Industries' Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

In August 2023 the service announced it would acquire the next nine Flight III warships with the costs spread across fiscal years 2023 to 2027. In addition, the contracts with Ingalls Shipbuilding, for six of the vessels, and three for General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works, could be expanded as the Navy sees fit.

The Backbone of the U.S. Navy's Surface Fleet

According to the U.S. Navy, each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been "built around the Aegis Combat System," and the vessels continue to be "the backbone of the U.S. Navy's surface fleet providing protection to America around the globe."

The Arleigh Burke class was developed at the tail end of the Cold War to replace the aging Charles F. Adams-class destroyers. Each of the guided-missile warships in the class has an overall length of 500 to 510 feet and a displacement that ranges from 8,230 to 9,700 tons.

The destroyers can operate independently or as part of Carrier Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups, and Expeditionary Strike Groups. As multi-mission surface combatants, the warships are capable of conducting Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). The DDG 51 Flight III upgrade was designed to be centered on the AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) system that provides vastly increased capability over Flight IIA ships. The AMDR has enabled Flight III ships to simultaneously perform AAW and BMD, which satisfies the U.S. Navy’s critical need for an enhanced surface combatant Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability.

The New USS Intrepid

Last Friday, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro officially named DDG-145 the future USS Intrepid while aboard the retired Essex-class aircraft carrier that shares its namesake. Preserved as the Intrepid Museum in New York City, the former carrier (CV/CVA/CVS-11) is just one of four maintained as a floating museum ship.

"It is deeply meaningful to stand aboard USS Intrepid – the fourth vessel to bear the name, and whose proud legacy continues to inspire and remind so many visitors of the courage, resilience and sacrifice that define the U.S. Navy – and it is with profound respect that we also look to the future of our Navy from these decks," said Secretary Del Toro. "It is my pleasure to announce that the fifth vessel named Intrepid will be an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, DDG 145, USS Intrepid, in honor of her past namesakes and the courageous service of all our Sailors globally from the South China Sea to the Red Sea."

The future Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be the fifth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the name.

The first was an armed ketch that was actually captured by Commodore Stephen Decatur during his mission against the Barbary pirates in North Africa to destroy the captured USS Philadelphia. Originally named Mastico, Decatur and his men took control of the ketch in December 1803, and renamed her Intrepid. She was employed as a fire ship in Tripoli harbor in September 1804 but exploded either prematurely or perhaps to stop a boarding party. Thirteen U.S. sailors were killed. An admiring Admiral Horatio Nelson of the Royal Navy described the feat as "the most bold and daring act of the age."

The second was an experimental steamship, while the third was a receiving and barracks ship. The most famous former USS Intrepid is the famed aircraft carrier.

Her keel was laid down just six days before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and upon completion, she immediately headed to the Pacific where she was greeted by a baptism of fire when she took part in the invasion of the Marshall Islands in January 1944. By the end of the war, USS Intrepid suffered a total of four kamikaze attacks as well as a torpedo strike, yet she survived.

The carrier remained in service until 1973, taking part in combat operations during the war in Vietnam, and recovering several NASA space capsules.

"We know this namesake ship will serve our Navy and our nation proudly as the former USS Intrepid did and continues to do, and we couldn't be more thrilled that it begins its proverbial journey today at the Intrepid Museum," said Intrepid Museum President Susan Marenoff-Zausner. "For all of its missions, the entire Museum team wishes the ships and its crew safety and success."

The future USS Intrepid's sponsor will be Betty Del Toro, wife of Secretary Del Toro and a "lifelong supporter of the Navy and a steadfast advocate for Sailors and Marines."

Meet the USS Robert Kerrey

On Saturday, Secretary Del Toro also named the future DDG-146, the USS Robert Kerrey – the first U.S. Navy vessel to be named for the former United States senator, Nebraska governor, and Medal of Honor recipient. A day earlier, Del Toro met with Kerrey in New York City and shared the news that the 96th vessel of the class would be named in his honor.

"My sincere thanks to President Biden, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro, and the United States Navy that gave me the opportunity to serve my country for three of the best years of my life," said Senator Kerrey. "I am very grateful for this recognition."

Senator Kerrey was awarded the Medal of Honor for service as a United States Navy SEAL in 1969. According to the service, on March 14 of that year, "he led his team on a mission to capture important Viet Cong political leaders who had set up a base of operations on an island in the bay of Nha Trang. The platoon scaled a 350-foot cliff and were descending from a ledge overlooking the enemy camp when a grenade exploded at Kerrey's feet, severely injuring his right leg and propelling him backward onto jagged rocks. Immobilized by his multiple wounds, Kerrey nonetheless continued directing his team in securing the enemy camp and finding an extraction site for helicopter evacuation."

Kerrey lost his lower leg during the action, and in 1970, became the first SEAL to receive the nation's highest decoration. He served as governor of the Cornhusker State from 1983 to 1987, and represented Nebraska as a U.S. senator from 1989 to 2001.

"One of the great privileges I have as Secretary of the Navy is to name ships, and it is my honor to name the future USS Robert Kerrey (DDG 146)," said Del Toro. "This will be the first Navy vessel named in his honor, and it is most appropriate we do so, for his actions in Vietnam and his continued service to this country well beyond his Naval service."

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

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

“What Happens In Vegas, Stays In Vegas.”—Official Las Vegas advertising slogan

It turns out that that slogan is not only applicable to more risqué and naughty nocturnal activities. Thanks to a totally awesome venue known as Battlefield Vegas, the truism also applies to the opportunity to rent and shoot antique firearms that are extremely difficult if not downright impossible to find anywhere else in the country (unless you’re filthy rich and can afford to actually purchase your own).

As luck would have it, during the final week of 2024, Yours Truly happened to be in “Sin City” to witness my beloved USC Trojans win the Las Vegas Bowl, so as one of my pre-Game Day activities, I decided to mosey on down to Battlefield Vegas and take advantage of the opportunity to shoot two antique, historically significant semiautomatic pistols: the Imperial German “Broomhandle” Mauser on the late 19th century and the WWII-era Type 14 8mm Japanese Nambu.

C96 “Broomhandle” 7.63 mm Mauser History & Specifications

Movie buffs will recognize the iconic “Broomhandle” Mauser as the template for the BlasTech DL-44 blaster that Han Solo uses in the Star Wars film franchise.

But this gun’s real-world history is even more remarkable. Patented in 1896 (hence the alphanumeric designation), it was the first military semiautomatic pistol to prove itself both rugged enough and reliable enough for field use. Moreover, it saved the life of none other than a young Winston Churchill during the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898

Dimensions included a barrel length of 5.5 inches, an overall length of 12,3 inches, a weight of 2 pounds 8 ounces, a standard internal magazine capacity of 10 rounds, and firing an original 7.63x25mm Mauser (AKA .30 Mauser) cartridge.

Type 14 8mm Japanese Nambu History & Specifications

The Type 14 Nambu entered production in 1926, an updated version of the Type A Nambu pistol developed in 1902 by Lieutenant General Kijirō Nambu. It was designated the Type 14 because 1926 was the 14th year of the reign of Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito).

Interestingly, the Nambu wasn’t the *official* issue sidearm of the Imperial Japanese Army, as IJA officers were expected to purchase their own pistols.

The gun had such a poor reputation for reliability – due in part to weak magazine springs and weak striker springs – that at least two of my colleagues at The National Interest, Peter Suciu and Kyle Mizokami, include the Nambu on their all-time Worst Guns lists. Also, various test-fire sessions with the Nambu on YouTube are plagued with malfunctions.

As for the 8x22mm cartridge, it’s a rimless bottleneck cartridge with a diameter of  0.320 inch, generating a muzzle velocity of 1,030 feet per second and 242 foot-pounds of muzzle energy with a 102-grain bullet. These ballistics put the 8mm Nambu round roughly on par with the .380 ACP round (which has an 0.355 inch diameter).

Range Report and Shooting Impressions

Battlefield Vegas’s rental Nambu will cost you $25.00 USD for shooting five rounds and $40 for firing ten rounds; their rental C96 Mauser will cost you 29 and 40 bucks respectively for those same round counts. Now, that might sound excessive, even with the cost of more conventional handgun ammo being what it is nowadays. However, from a business standpoint, these prices make perfect sense; after all, these are antique firearms for which spare parts are extremely difficult to come by in case something breaks, so naturally Battlefield Vegas is going to want to maximize their profit margin for each shot fired. (I suppose you could call that “getting more buck for your bang” as opposed to vice versa.)

The shop’s Nambu specimen was the following mini-history:

“This Japanese pistol was brought back to the United States by a US Marine when World War 2 ended and is a genuine piece of world history.”

So then, how did these classic pistols shoot for me?

Well, naturally I had to purchase the 10-round options for each gun in order to do at least a semi-proper evaluation. The ammo for the 7.63mm Mauser was PPU (Prvi Partizan) 85-grain full metal jacket (FMJ), whilst the 8mm Nambu ammo was a generic (no manufacturing specs listed anywhere on the box) 106-grain FMJ.

I was provided a single B-27 silhouette target for both pistols. For both guns, I divvied the eval into five rounds of head shots at 7 yards and five rounds of torso shots at 25 yards, “When in Rome, do like a Roman,” as the saying goes, so for the 7-yard stage, I used the old-school one-handed pistol shooting stance that was universally taught to soldiers before the late great Col. Jeff Cooper revolutionized two-handed handgun shooting in the 1950s and 60s; at 25 yards, I reverted to my preferred two-handed Classic Weaver Stance.

Both pistols had tolerable ergonomics and trigger pulls, much better than might be expected of mil-spec pistols; the Type 14’s didn’t have excess slack or creep, whilst the C96’s pull felt rather surprisingly like that of a newer vintage traditional double-action (TDA) pistol . The Japanese gun had the cruder sights of the two, whilst the German gat had tangent sights that could hypothetically (and rather optimistically) be adjusted for accurate fire at hundreds of meters.

Both guns enabled me to connect on all of my head shots, although surprisingly the 8mm gave me the tighter groups. At 25 yards, the Nambu gave me one 10-ring hit (just shy of the tie-breaking X-ring), two low-right in the 9-wing, one low-right in the 8-ring…and one flier way off to the extreme right periphery of the 7-ring. The Mauser gave me the tighter group at the farther distance, printing high-right, with one round just barely clipping the 10-ring and the rest taking the 9-ring.

The “Broomhandle” gave me flawless reliability, whist, unsurprisingly, the Type 14 had a failure to feed at Round #8.

Overall, a fun though all-too-brief range session getting to shoot these two pieces of history. Many thanks/Vielen dank/Domo arigato gozaimasu, Battlefield Vegas!

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

According to the International Energy Agency, China’s investment in manufacturing has increased by about 600 percent since 2005, and its share of value added in global manufacturing has almost tripled. As a result, China now generates one-third of global value added in manufacturing and has become the top trade partner of over 120 countries; trade to and from China makes up 45 percent of all dry bulk shipping and 30 percent of all container shipping.

China’s role is especially visible—but not limited to—products like solar panels, electric vehicles, and batteries—in addition to essential manufacturing inputs like steel and aluminum. Over 40 percent of all jobs in the world’s nuclear industry are now in China. This poses great and growing challenges for the United States and its allies, especially its economically advanced allies in Europe and Asia. Has China truly peaked, or does it still possess the resources and political structure to sustain its rise? Can the United States under a second Trump administration be counted on as a reliable ally for Japan? And what collective strategies might rival Beijing’s global economic reach?

On January 6, the Center for the National Interest hosted a virtual discussion on “Countering China’s Economic Might” with Mr. Tatsuya Terazawa, Chairman and CEO of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). Terazawa is the author of a recent article in The National Interest, “Five Ways to Counter China’s Economic Might.” Prior to his appointment as Chairman and CEO at IEEJ in 2021, he had a long and distinguished career in Japan’s government, including as Vice Minister for International Affairs in Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry and as Executive Secretary to former Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, in the wake of the massive 2011 earthquake and tsunami that devastated portions of eastern Japan. He holds a law degree from the University of Tokyo and an MBA from Harvard University.

Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest, moderated the discussion.

Image: Prasit Rodphan / Shutterstock.com.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that President Joe Biden issued an order prohibiting the acquisition of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel Corporation by Tokyo-based Nippon Steel Corporation. The corporate offices of both companies have “condemned” Mr. Biden’s decision. President-elect Trump has indicated that he would treat the transaction with similar scrutiny as well. The saga of this once-great steel giant can be traced through the twentieth century. The U.S. government, on multiple occasions, extended a life preserver to this iconic brand, which is synonymous with the American industrial revolution itself.

Yet by 2023, more than a century after it was founded, U.S. Steel sought to be acquired by another firm to save itself. Potential offers from other domestic steel companies were not as attractive, and potential antitrust issues were raised after extensive past consolidation in the industry. Enter Nippon, hailed by proponents of the deal as a savior that poses no national security threat because it is from Japan, an American ally. Nonetheless, Mr. Biden’s order explicitly details the perceived national security concerns raised by the merger. 

The financial reality remains, however, and U.S. Steel needs a solution. That white knight could come in the form of American private equity (PE), the competencies of which include takeover and turnaround. Certainly, the magnitude and complexity of such a proposal should not be underestimated. However, if carefully crafted, a PE transaction could achieve the outcomes of both keeping the company operating and maintaining domestic control, the desired goal of U.S. officials.

The proposition poses the question of why a PE firm would be financially motivated to engage in such a transaction. Tax benefits and policy measures have both been deployed previously to shore up American steel firms. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan reduced the business tax burden on U.S. Steel, enabling it to recover capital investment costs in a faster time frame. He also instituted a government policy on steel, providing a limited solution for the industry, which included surge protection and identification of unfair foreign trade practices. Critics argued that  U.S. Steel executives used cost savings for measures other than the viability of steel production.

Turning to the present situation, tax benefits would incentivize investment by a domestic PE firm or a group of them. They are more than capable of paying the quoted $14.9 billion (cash and debt) cost. The incoming Trump administration could work with Congress to develop a strategic investment credit. Similar to tax credits given to other industries to modernize production, these credits would motivate acquisition and subsequent transformation. In order for steel production to become viable and sustainable in the long term, a greater leap into the digital age will be required. A potential PE firm acquisition should not be viewed simply as a crutch to get to the next crisis of finance for U.S. Steel. It would have to be a restructuring of the operation done in conjunction with the workers who are the backbone of the industry. It could then be presented as a going private alternative to the shareholders for consideration. 

Financial firms have made profits all over the world. A U.S. Steel turnaround would be an opportunity to return goodwill to the domestic workforce while also making a return on investment. Incoming Trump administration officials have extensive experience in PE. They could usher in a new era for domestic steel. Every single industry is on the precipice of existential change pending the imminent integration of technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. As steel develops a new incoming workforce, domestic technology training and capacity need to be part of the incipient strategy.

Only a bold approach can keep U.S. Steel under U.S. oversight. The resources of PE firms were not a comprehensive option in the 1980s or 1990s when steel continued to seek government solutions. Now, however, the U.S. private sector has the resources to solve an immediate predicament and can be motivated to find a longer-term pathway. Nippon is a globally trusted name and the fourth-largest producer of steel in the world. It will survive a potential break-up of this transaction. If U.S. Steel can be transformed into an updated, future entity, it can work with partners around the world like Nippon to mount a strong competitive advantage against the threat of Chinese state-owned steel.

Manisha Singh is Principal at Sunstone Strategy Group and former Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

The twenty-first century will be defined by the great power competition between the United States and China. The winner of that competition will likely be the nation that dominates the tech sector. During his first term, President Donald Trump defeated Communist China’s effort to control the global 5G market by installing Huawei as essentially the world’s sole telecommunications provider. 

Huawei did not take its loss lying down. The company took advantage of four years of Biden administration weakness to reconstitute as an Artificial Intelligence (AI) enterprise. Now, like it attempted to do with 5G, China seeks to make the rest of the world reliant on Huawei’s AI technology. As the great Yogi Berra once said, “It’s Déjà Vu all over again.”

President-elect Trump is about to take office again with a plan for an unprecedented era of American economic prosperity. But on its way out the door, the Biden administration is trying to hamstring Trump while giving Communist China a gift in the form of the Interim Final Rule on “Export Control Framework for AI Diffusion.” This proposed rule would create a global export control regime on AI and related hardware that has been on the market for years. This regime would restrict free commerce by preventing U.S. companies from freely selling mainstream AI hardware and software to American partners and allies abroad.

The consequence of the rule will be that Huawei fills the AI supplier void. China would thereby control the market for the most important technology of this century. Huawei would have the global monopoly it wanted for 5G in the more important AI sector.

The hardware and software that power AI and are targeted by Biden’s rule-making are at the heart of the transition in computing from a CPU-based model to a GPU-based model. This transition is designed to speed up the work of computers while reducing costs, such as those for energy. It is an area where we still lead China.

Instead of controlling “frontier AI,” the most advanced AI applications, the new Biden rules would allow frontier AI to be developed and sold unchecked by Chinese companies such as Huawei. American technology firms, with vastly diminished global markets, would be relegated to second-tier status. If U.S. companies are prevented by their government from meeting the demand for AI hardware and software, then Chinese companies will step in to meet this demand. There is little doubt that China will subsidize these firms and support their sales efforts diplomatically.

In addition to hobbling cutting-edge American technology companies, the new rule would exacerbate the worst elements of the outgoing administration’s Green New Deal and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act by allowing bureaucrats to pick winners and losers among U.S. companies. The next big breakthrough in tech will not be decided by the free market but rather by an unelected bureaucrat in Washington who claims to “know better” if Biden’s rule is allowed to stand.

In November, the American people decisively rejected an era of American weakness and chose President-elect Trump to reassert American economic might. The Biden administration is attempting a last-minute sabotage of President Trump’s second term by preventing American companies from leading and winning the race for AI and modern computing. This Biden endeavor must be rejected.

Robert C. O’Brien served as the twenty-seventh U.S. National Security Advisor under President Trump from 2019-2021.

Image: Shutterstock.com.