Diplomacy & Crisis News

A growing chorus of establishment pundits and policymakers have taken to branding anyone who calls for prioritizing diplomacy over force in U.S. foreign policy as “isolationist.”  

In official Washington, labeling an analyst, advocate, or organization isolationist is essentially an effort to convince the public at large that they are naive, and therefore not to be taken seriously. But recent history suggests that the “military first” (and second and third) approach favored by the Washington establishment is in fact the stance that is the most naive.

The direct U.S. wars of this century, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, have done more harm than good, consuming vast quantities of blood and treasure in the process— $8 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention millions of displaced people, all  according to estimates by Brown University’s Costs of War project.  America’s slightly less direct wars – those we fund or supply with bombers and bombs – in Yemen, Gaza, and Ukraine are devastating and costly financially, environmentally, and in humanitarian impact. 

Interventionists – and their cheerleaders in the media and think tanks – are never held to account for their failures.   

Moreover, most advocates of greater restraint are not opposed to all uses of force. For example, U.S. support for Ukraine’s effort to fend off Russia’s invasion of their country is essential. But it must be accompanied by a diplomatic track aimed at preventing a long, grinding war that causes more death and destruction and precludes rebuilding, while constantly risking escalation to a direct U.S.-Russia or NATO-Russia conflict.  This view appears to be gaining traction with at least some U.S. officials. But when advocates of a diplomatic track raised the idea early in the conflict, many experts and policy advocates within the DC establishment mislabeled it as isolationist.

Given the challenges we face, from thwarting Russian aggression in Ukraine, to taking a balanced approach to the challenges posed by China, to stopping the slaughter in Gaza and heading off a region-wide Middle East war, America desperately needs a serious debate on what policies to pursue in a rapidly changing global security environment.  That means evaluating proposals grounded in a policy of restraint seriously, not dismissing them with misleading labels.  

A critical component of a more effective, more affordable approach to national security should be a more realistic view of the challenges posed by China. Unfortunately, many top U.S. officials are doing more to promote exaggerated views of a hostile Chinese regime bent on global domination than they are to encourage a factual assessment of Beijing’s intentions and capabilities. For example, at the recent Aspen Security Forum, Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Charles Brown warned that if the U.S. lapsed into isolationism – a term he did not define – it “opens the door to Xi Jinping and others who want to do unprovoked aggression . . .We have credibility at stake.”

The tensions between the United States and China are real, but there is little evidence to suggest that Beijing is chomping at the bit to invade its neighbors if the U.S. shifts to a more restrained, realistic strategy.  The most contentious issue –the future status of Taiwan – would be best addressed via diplomacy, in the form of a revival of the “One China” policy that has kept the peace in the Taiwan Straits for the past five decades.  The policy holds that the United States will not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation, and that it will maintain informal relations with Taipei and refrain from treating it as if it were a treaty ally. For its part, China would pledge to pursue unification with Taiwan via peaceful means only.

There are larger problems in the U.S.-China relationship, most notably an action-reaction cycle based on each side’s worst case assessment of the other’s motives and military might.  While neither side is actively seeking conflict, there is a danger that the two sides might stumble into war if they remain on their current paths. In this context, a truly defensive strategy in East Asia that seeks to deter Chinese military action against its neighbors while abandoning the more dangerous and costly goal of being able to “win” a war with that nation is the course most likely to establish stability in the region.

As we elect a new President and Congress, we should debate the future of U.S. foreign policy.  But let’s do it honestly, without throwing around misleading labels intended to shut down debate and to keep us mired in a deadly, expensive and counterproductive approach to world affairs.

About the Author: 

William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Today’s stronger-than-expected GDP numbers make it very unlikely that the Federal Reserve will start an interest rate-cutting cycle at its policy meeting this week. This is a great pity, considering the multiple downside risks to the economic recovery that are now in plain sight. By the time the Fed starts cutting interest rates, it will likely be too late for the Fed to stave off an economic recession.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Jerome Powell Fed is its backward-looking monetary policy approach. In 2021, the Fed was inexcusably slow in raising interest rates at a time when there were clear signs of an acceleration in inflation. Today, the Fed is very slow in cutting interest rates. It is too slow at a time when there are clear signs that inflation is moderating and that downside risks to the economy are building.

A backward-looking Fed will likely say that today’s GDP numbers do not provide it with sufficient reassurance that inflation is coming down to its 2 percent inflation target on a sustainable basis. In defense of its position, the Fed will note that in the second quarter, GDP growth accelerated to a faster-than-expected 2.8 percent. It will also point out that the core personal consumer expenditure deflator, the Fed’s favorite inflation yardstick, ticked up 2.7 percent compared to a year ago.

The basic mistake that the Fed now appears to   shopping habits following the pandemic, commercial property prices are dropping, and property developers are already starting to default on the $900 billion in property loans that fall due this year. This will hit the banks especially hard at a time when high interest rates have wrought serious damage on their loan and bond portfolios. It is estimated that the banks are currently sitting on more than $1 trillion in mark-to-market losses on those portfolios.

According to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, close to 400 small and medium-sized banks could fail due to high interest rates and the commercial property crisis. Were such failures to materialize, they would be reminiscent of the 1980s Savings and Loan Crisis, which contributed significantly to an economic recession.

Another risk that could derail the recovery is the United States’ drift toward protectionist policies, especially against China. One clear indication of this drift is the emphasis in the current election cycle on the need to protect American jobs from foreign competition. Donald Trump has made clear that if he wins the election, he will impose a 60 percent import tariff on China and a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all other countries’ exports. That would carry the risk of retaliation by our trade partners and a return to the economically destructive beggar-thy-neighbor policies of the 1930s.

Looking abroad, there is no shortage of political and economic risks to which the Fed should be paying attention. Russia is still engaged in its war with Ukraine, while the Israel-Hamas War could spill over to the rest of the Middle East. China, the world’s second-largest economy and, until recently, its main engine of economic growth, is struggling to cope with the fallout from the bursting of its massive housing and equity bubble. Meanwhile, a heavily indebted and ungovernable France raises the specter of another round of Eurozone sovereign debt crises.

In 2021, at a time when the economy was recovering strongly and receiving its largest peacetime stimulus on record, the Powell Fed maintained interest rates at zero to keep a strong recovery going. That allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle. Today, at a time when the Fed’s high interest rates have caused inflation to moderate sharply and at a time when downside risks to the economy are building, the Fed is choosing to stick to its hawkish monetary policy stance. This heightens the chance that the Powell Fed will end up with contributing not only to the inflationary surge to a multi-decade high in 2022 but to an economic recession by early next year.

About the Author: Desmind Lachman 

Desmond Lachman is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was previously a Deputy Director in the International Monetary Fund’s Policy Development and Review Department as well as the Chief Emerging-Market Economic Strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Avec une marge nette de près de 20 %, deux fois celle des plats de la restauration ordinaire, le burger fait figure de « cash-machine ». Très vite rentabilisé, vite préparé, vite avalé, il figurerait aujourd'hui à la carte de trois lieux de restauration sur quatre en France ; en 2023 dans l'Hexagone, on (...) / Agroalimentaire, Agriculture, Alimentation - 2024/07

The spectacle of recent electoral shifts in Britain and France, together with looming ones in the United States and elsewhere, raises the question of whether there is any common pattern here. The Left seems to be winning in some cases and losing in others. Clearly, incumbents are unpopular, regardless of ideology. Is there anything more to it than that?

One way to understand all these cases is to refer to the old English idea of a Court Party versus a Country Party. As described by Viscount Bolingbroke in the early eighteenth century, England’s Court Party was led by a Whig elite of the wealthiest aristocrats in alliance with the City of London. This party dominated the king’s ministry and used the resulting patronage to its own benefit. Bolingbroke argued for the legitimacy of an alternate faction, called the Country Party, with its base of support among the lesser nobles, yeomanry, and older faith of rural England. This party, he hoped, could rule in the interest of the whole nation rather than simply in the interest of its metropolitan establishment.

Over the past decade, electoral politics in nearly every Western nation has been upended by a new axis of division closely resembling Bolingbroke’s pairing of Court versus Country. Since this division cuts across the familiar one of Left versus Right, it confuses and frightens observers who misunderstand it. Most working-class, rural, and small-town voters feel that traditional party elites have stopped protecting the people’s interests—or even granting heartland voters a minimal degree of respect. This has encouraged the growth of Country Party insurgencies against besieged Court Party elites among conservatives as well as progressives.

The resulting political dynamic is best understood by picturing four political factions in competition with one another: Court Progressives, Court Conservatives, Country Progressives, and Country Conservatives. This competition is more complex than the simple dichotomy of Left versus Right, allowing for cross-cutting tensions and tactical alliances in different directions. Its exact outcomes vary greatly from one Western nation to the next, depending on local circumstances, including national leaders and the strategies they pursue.

France

Let’s start with the most recent electoral shift involving the case of France. President Emmanuel Macron created Ensemble, a socially progressive, pro-business coalition devoted to liberal technocratic governance. Further left, the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) emerged this year as an anti-establishment coalition featuring the Gallic version of a Country Progressive platform.

Les Republicains, a traditional center-right establishment party, represents Court Conservatives in France. Meanwhile, Country Conservatives have rallied to Marine Le Pen’s National Rally or Rassemblement National (RN), a movement opposed to continued mass migration from the Muslim world. While often described as far-right—including by the supposedly neutral Ministry of Interior—Le Pen has taken pains to distance herself from her father’s noxious anti-Semitism. In fact, she critiques Macron’s economic policies from the Left and supports liberal abortion laws while defending a distinctly French national identity.

In the first round of French parliamentary elections, held on June 30, Marine Le Pen’s coalition won a clear plurality of the vote. This triggered the creation of an alliance between Macronists and the NFP, whereby hundreds of candidates from both coalitions stepped down to allow for the strongest possible competitor versus the RN in each district. The tactic worked. Even though Le Pen’s coalition won an even bigger plurality in the second and final round of voting on July 7, Ensemble and the NFP each won more seats. Meanwhile, Les Republicains ran a distant fourth.

Most striking were the demographics of these results. According to Ipsos France, Le Pen’s RN-led alliance won a whopping 57 percent of blue-collar workers, far outpacing any other coalition. Meanwhile, the NFP found its greatest strength among big cities, younger voters, managers and professionals, those with postgraduate degrees, the non-religious, and those describing themselves as “upper class.” Ensemble dominated the vote only among septuagenarians.

The French case illustrates findings that ring true throughout much of the Western world. Objectively, the RN’s overall policy combination is now center-right. But it’s a version of center-right unacceptable to some traditional establishment conservatives. The RN-led alliance is therefore defined as “far right.” Furthermore, the self-imposed difficulties in getting Court Conservatives and Country Conservatives to cooperate against the Left are immense.

Meanwhile, French progressives have no such qualms. Working on the premise of no enemies to the Left, Court Progressives work tactically with Country Progressives to collectively achieve power. This leaves the Left in control despite overwhelming working-class support for Country Conservatives.

The United Kingdom

The UK’s general election held on July 4 suggests a similar pattern despite all the obvious differences with France. Britain’s Conservative or Tory Party worked under the disadvantage of having governed for too long in a way that alienated voters in nearly every direction. Their leader, Rishi Sunak, was a Court Conservative down to his fingertips. He was also unable to bring mass migration, high taxes, political correctness, a sluggish economy, or regulatory overkill under control. Under such conditions, why vote Tory? Nigel Farage, the cigarette-smoking English populist, therefore led Country Conservatives into his newborn creation, Reform UK. Reform did very well for a novel third party, winning 14 percent of the popular vote. Sunak’s Tories were left with a little less than 24 percent. However, the distribution of seats was such that Reform only won five seats in the House of the Commons, while the Tories won 121.

On the Left, Labour’s Keir Starmer was able to build and maintain a working alliance between Court Progressives and Country Progressives that was more than sufficient to win the election. However, this was not because Labour’s ideology was beloved by most Britons. Polling at less than 34 percent nationwide, it did not do especially well for a governing party in terms of the popular vote. Rather, the key—at least in England—was division among the Conservatives, along with the sheer unpopularity of Sunak’s government. Given the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system, Labor won a colossal 412 seats, while the Tory coalition splintered and collapsed. In truth, this was among the least exciting and most unrepresentative landslides in British history.

Looking ahead, small-c conservatives in Britain face four possible futures in the coming decade. First, the Tories may find a new leader who can win back Country Conservatives and sail to victory, as Boris Johnson did only a few years ago. Second, Reform UK and the Tory Party may continue to split center-right voters, Court versus Country, allowing indefinite rule by Labor. Third, Nigel Farage may succeed in absorbing most Court Conservatives into Reform UK, leaving the Tories as a minor remnant. Fourth, Farage and the Tories may agree to merge into a new party acceptable to all British conservatives. And while this last scenario may seem most unlikely, it has happened in the past. For an example of that, we turn to Canada.

Canada

In Canada—unlike Britain or the United States—the great split between Court and Country Conservatives occurred more than thirty years ago. The leading issues driving that split were not immigration, trade, or foreign policy but regional and constitutional. Canada’s Liberal Party ruled for thirteen years as a result. Once center-right political activists finally reunited in a newly formed Conservative Party, its leader, Stephen Harper, won the federal election of 2006. This helped to set the pattern for subsequent Tory leaders. Ever since Harper, Canada’s Court Conservatives have responded to Country Conservatives not by denouncing them but by staying closely in touch with their concerns. This process—also known as “politics”—has helped to maintain Tory unity through thick and thin.

Canada’s Liberals are the party of that nation’s Court Progressives, based in the downtown districts of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. In 2015, the Liberals won back power under Justin Trudeau. Initially hailed as a fresh face, he turned out to be a disaster, presiding over a period of inflation, scandal, dysfunction, and woke revolution. Most Canadians are thoroughly fed up with him. He maintains a working majority in the House of Commons only through the tactical forbearance of Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP)—a coalition of democratic socialists or Country Progressives. 

Trudeau must hold an election by October 2025 at the latest. The most recent polls have him winning 24 percent of the vote nationwide, reduced to something like 70 seats out of 338 in the Commons. Further to the Left, the NDP holds steady at around 20 percent in these polls, leaving them approximately twenty seats. The Conservatives, meanwhile, polled around 40 percent, winning them over 200 seats under current projections. A Quebec separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois, secured a plurality of seats in La Belle Province under current projections, as they usually have over the past generation.

The current Tory leader, Pierre Poilievre, is a fluently bilingual Albertan skilled at making his party’s case in a plucky, common-sense manner persuasive to ordinary people. He’s also on track to defeat Trudeau’s Liberals in a landslide next year. As a result, the media denounces him as “a conspiracy theorist.” Of course, he is nothing of the sort. Poilievre is a conservative pragmatist with populist, libertarian, and politically incorrect sensibilities. Or, to put it another way—take my word for it—he’s a typical Canadian prairie boy.

In the second part of this series, the author applies the framework of Court versus Country to the United States, with implications for the November election.

Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary and Key Points: Russia is increasing the deployment of its Vikhr air-launched anti-armor missile in Ukraine, utilizing its high precision and destructive power. Produced by Kalashnikov, the Vikhr can be fired from Ka-52 "Alligator" and Mi28N helicopters, effectively targeting armored vehicles, infantry, and fortified positions.

-Developed in the Soviet era, the Vikhr boasts a maximum range of 10 km and employs a tandem shaped-charge/HEAT warhead.

-As both sides rely heavily on advanced anti-tank weapons and drones, Russia's expanded use of the Vikhr missile underscores its strategic shift in the ongoing conflict.

Russia is Expanding the Use of its Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon

As Russian troops massed on the border of Ukraine in late 2021 and early 2022, there was speculation that Ukrainian militia would have to confront Russian T-90 tanks with more than Molotov cocktails (aka gasoline bombs). When the Kremlin did mount its unprovoked invasion under the guise of a "special military operation," Ukraine was able to stop the Russian tanks with Western-made man-portable rocket launchers like the American FGM-148 Javelin, British NLAW, and Swedish AT4.

Those weapons proved deadly to the Russian tanks, and the Kremlin was forced to regroup.

Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) including loitering munitions and other drones have also been credited with destroying thousands of tanks on both sides. There are now reports that Russia may expand the use of its Vikhr air-launched anti-armor missile.

According to a report from Russian state media outlet Tass, the military conglomerate Rostec has claimed the Vikhr can deliver "phenomenal hit precision," where "one missile is one destroyed target." The ordnance is being produced by the Kalashnikov Company and can be employed from the Ka-52 "Alligator" attack helicopter, while the Mi28N helicopter will soon be armed with the upgraded Vikhr-1.

"The missiles are effective in any time of the day and in bad weather. The engagement of Vikhr is expanding in the special military operation. They are used to destroy armor in shelters or in motion and strike at Ukrainian firing points and camouflaged and protected objects," Rostec stated.

The Vikhr in the Crosshairs

Development of 9K121 Vikhr (NATO reporting name AT-16 Scallion) began in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s but wasn't presented until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The laser-beam-riding anti-tank missile has a maximum daytime range of 10 km (6 miles) but is most effective at around 800 meters (half a mile). It has a maximum speed of 800 km/h (500 mph), while its tandem shaped-charge/High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warheads can reportedly penetrate up to 750mm of homogeneous armor, behind ERA. 

It is also equipped with a proximity fuse, which enables area-effect that allows it to target non-armored entities, including infantry, forward positions, buildings, and even helicopters – making it a multi-purpose missile.

A laser beam directs the missile to the target, and it employs an automatic sight until equipped with a video monitor for use in the daytime, and infrared for night. Both target tracking and missile control of the Vikhr are automated. According to Army Recognition, the Vikhr has a hit probability of up to 95% against stationary targets and up to 80% against moving targets – but "it is important to note that this missile's accuracy diminishes over long ranges due to the spread of the guiding laser beam."

A dozen Vikhr air-to-ground missiles can be carried on the Ka-52.

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: Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: In a significant display of military cooperation, Russian Tupolev Tu-95 and Chinese Xi'an H-6 bombers conducted a joint patrol near the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) this week. Detected and intercepted by NORAD, the bombers remained in international airspace and did not pose a threat to North American security.

-This unprecedented joint patrol highlights the deepening military ties between Russia and China. NORAD's response included fighter jets from both the U.S. and Canada, ensuring robust monitoring of the activity.

-Despite the heightened alert, the patrol adhered to international law, with no violations of U.S. or Canadian sovereign airspace.

Russia and China Send Joint Bomber Patrol Near Alaska

It hasn't been uncommon in recent years for Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (NATO reporting name Bear) long-range bombers to be spotted near, and even within, the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). The Kremlin has increased what it calls routine patrols over neutral waters, but what made the flight on Wednesday "unique" is that a pair of the Tu-95s was accompanied by two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force Xi'an H-6 bombers.

The H-6, which is the PLAAF's primary bomber aircraft, is a license-built version of the Soviet-designed Tupolev Tu-16.

According to a statement from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), it "detected, tracked, and intercepted" the four aircraft – with NORAD fighter jets from both the United States and Canada taking part in Wednesday's intercept.

"The Russian and PRC aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace. This Russian and PRC activity in the Alaska ADIZ is not seen as a threat, and NORAD will continue to monitor competitor activity near North America and meet presence with presence," NORAD announced.

It was clear where the U.S. and Canadian aircraft were deployed from, or what kind of fighters took part in the intercept. In the past U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and F-16 Fighting Falcons have been sortied to intercept the Russian bombers, while Canadian NORAD Region (CANR) – headquartered at the 1 Canadian Air Division in Winnipeg, Manitoba, operates the CF-18 Hornet, a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) variant of the American McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet fighter.

The Russian Version

The Russian Ministry of Defense has claimed that the patrol "was carried out as part of the 2024 military cooperation plan and was not directed against third countries," while it claimed the joint flight of the Chinese and Russian bombers lasted more than five hours.

"An air group of the Tu-95MS strategic bombers of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Hong-6K strategic bombers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force conducted a joint air patrol over the Chukchi Sea, the Bering Sea and the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. Russian and Chinese crews practiced cooperation while carrying out an air patrol mission in a new area. The Su-30SM and Su-35S aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces provided fighter cover," read a statement from the ministry to state media outlet TASS.

The ministry further stressed that none of the two sets of bombers violated the airspace of the United States or any other country, but acknowledged the intercept.

 "Foreign fighter jets escorted the air group at certain stages of the route. While performing the mission, both countries' aircraft acted in strict compliance with international law. There were no violations of other countries' airspace," the statement noted.

NORAD also stressed that the Chinese and Russian aircraft never entered U.S. airspace during the patrol flight, but did enter the ADIZ, which "begins where sovereign airspace ends and is a defined stretch of international airspace that requires the ready identification of all aircraft in the interest of national security."

Russia's Tu-95 Bear Bomber

The Russian Aerospace Force continues to operate the Tu-95MS, a highly updated heavy variant of the early Cold War era aircraft that first entered service in 1952. It is now among the oldest aircraft designs still flying anywhere in the world and is the only propeller-powered bomber in operation today.

Yet, it continues to log the miles in the sky. The current models have a reported range that is greater than 9,300 miles (15,000 km) – allowing to make the round-trip flights to the Alaskan ADIZ from bases in the Russian Far East.

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: Shutterstock or Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: Denmark and the Netherlands continue their strong support for Ukraine by announcing the delivery of an additional fourteen German-made Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs).

-These tanks, purchased last year and refurbished by Rheinmetall, are expected to arrive in Ukraine by the end of the summer.

-Despite previous issues with older Leopard 1 MBTs, this new batch aims to bolster Ukraine's defenses against Russian aggression.

-The Leopard 2, renowned for its advanced capabilities, has seen extensive use in conflicts like the War in Afghanistan and the Syrian Civil War, proving its effectiveness in modern combat.

Ukraine to Receive 14 Refurbished Leopard 2A4 Tanks from Denmark and Netherlands

NATO members Denmark and the Netherlands remain staunch supporters of Ukraine. Each has supplied Kyiv with American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon multirole fighter aircraft and previously had pledged to supply Leopard 2 main battle tanks (MBTs) to aid Ukraine's war effort.

On Thursday, both nations announced they will send an additional fourteen of the German-made Leopard 2A4 MBTs in the coming weeks, after buying the tanks last year for 165 million euros ($186 million). The MBTs have been serviced and refurbished by the German-based Rheinmetall for deployment to the frontlines – a process that has been completed.

"Yesterday and today, the last two Leopard 2s are undergoing their verification tests as part of the delivery. All 14 tanks will be delivered simultaneously before the end of the summer," the Dutch Ministry of Defense announced."Ukraine urgently needs more military support, given the heavy fighting on the battlefield. These tanks can play an important role for the Ukrainian army to defend itself against Russian troops. The Netherlands, together with allies and partners, will continue to support Ukraine unabated, for as long as necessary. This is crucial to protect Ukraine and keep Putin's aggression at bay," said Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans.

Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands had also pledged to supply around 100 older Leopard 1 MBTs, but it was reported in May that many of the tanks were found to have significant defects. Significant repairs needed to be made, and that issue served to put a spotlight on NATO's readiness and the reliability of some of its member states' military hardware.

The NATO Tank

The German-made Leopard 2 is considered among the best MBTs in service today, although it wasn't really "proven" in combat until the War in Afghanistan and the Syrian Civil War – decades after it first entered service. Developed in the 1970s to replace the older Leopard 1, the Leopard 2 was adopted by the West German Bundeswehr in 1979 and has been exported to nations around the world.

The third-generation 55-ton Leopard 2 is armed with a 120mm smoothbore main gun and equipped with a digital fire control system. The MBT has been steadily upgraded and is in active service with numerous NATO members, including those nations that directly border Russia.

Currently, the Polish Armed Forces operates the Leopard 2PL, a modernized version of the older Leopard 2A4. Modernization of the MBT is being carried out in cooperation with Rheinmetall and the Polish Armaments Group. As of the end of last year, the Polish Army has 62 Leopard 2 in the PL/PLM1 version in service out of a planned 142 vehicles.

Despite its capabilities, the Leopard 2 isn't a super weapon – a point noted as more than two dozen have reportedly been seriously damaged or destroyed in Ukraine. However, the frontlines in the ongoing fighting have become a graveyard for tanks, with thousands lost by Russia in the now more than two-and-a-half-year-long war.

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: Shutterstock. 

/ Nouvelle-Calédonie, Démographie, Pauvreté, Peuples autochtones - Océanie / Nouvelle-Calédonie, Démographie, Pauvreté, Peuples autochtones - Océanie

Summary and Key Points: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out a strategic airstrike on oil facilities in Al Hudaydah, Yemen, following a lethal drone attack by Houthi rebels on Tel Aviv. This unprecedented strike involved a dozen aircraft, including the advanced F-35I Adir, showcasing Israel's aerial capabilities.

-The F-35I, a customized version of the American-made Joint Strike Fighter, is central to Israel's air superiority and defensive strategy.

-This operation highlights the evolving threats Israel faces from regional proxies like the Houthi rebels, who have intensified their attacks on Israeli and international targets, and demonstrates the critical role of the F-35I Adir in Israel's military response.

F-35I Attack on Houthis:

Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force carried out strikes targeting oil facilities in a port on Yemen’s west coast. 

This unprecedented attack followed a lethal drone bombing by Houthi rebels on Tel Aviv last Thursday. The IAF published video footage of its retaliatory barrage, showing fighter jets being refueled as part of the “Outstretched Arm” operation. 

Other videos showing the aftermath of the strikes in the Al Hudaydah port city have circulated showing massive fires and explosions at the oil terminal. The raid marks the first time Israel has carried out an airstrike in Yemen and highlights the significant role the F-35I Adir fighter plays in the Jewish state’s security arsenal.

“A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck military targets of the Houthi terrorist regime in the area of the Al Hudaydah Port in Yemen in response to the hundreds of attacks carried out against the State of Israel in recent months,” the IDF said on Telegram shortly after the strike. “There are no changes in the Home Front Command defensive guidelines. In the case of a change to the guidelines, we will update the public accordingly. Details to follow.” 

On July 19, a long-range Iran-designed UAV struck the center of heavily populated Tel Aviv in the middle of the night, killing one civilian and injuring four others. Tehran’s willingness and capability to use its regional proxies to strike inside Israeli territory has only increased since Hamas’s October 7 massacre. The Houthi rebels are also responsible for dozens of attacks over the last nine months targeting U.S., Israeli, and international shipping and commercial vessels in the Red Sea. According to Israel, Houthi rebels have fired more than 220 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones at Israel since October.  

An Overview of the F-35I Adir Platform

While details of the strike have yet to be confirmed, the IAF’s long-range strike capabilities should worry Israel’s adversaries. According to an Al Arabiya report, a dozen Israeli aircraft were used in the port city attack, and these included the fifth-generation Adir platform. 

Israel’s air superiority over the Middle East can perhaps be attributed to the Adir, its unique F-35 stealth fighter variant. The IAF is the only military on Earth to possess a custom version of the American-made Joint Strike Fighter. Back in 2010, the Jewish state became the first nation outside the aircraft’s nine-nation co-development group to purchase the jet. Manufacturer Lockheed Martin agreed to allow Israel to incorporate its own domestic technologies into the platform to suit its specific defensive needs.

When the IAF acquired the F-35I Adir “Mighty One” variant, it was granted permission to equip its new fighters with a homegrown Electronic Warfare System. Additionally, homegrown countermeasures, sensors, and helmet-mounted displays were built into the Adir fighters.  The F-35 is widely considered the best fifth-generation fighter in the skies today, and Israel’s specialized variant is arguably the most advanced. 

In 2019, the IAF’s Adir fleet flew in its first combat operation when it carried out strikes in Syria to target Iranian assets on the ground. Prior to this, the Lightning II platform had not been used in combat operations. In 2021, the IAF’s Adir jets also carried out the platform’s first ever aerial engagement, destroying an Iran-launched UAV that was flying close to the Israeli border.

The Adirs’ Role in Post-10/7 Israel

Since October 7, Israel’s Adir fleet has participated in operations against the Gaza-based terror group Hamas. The IAF previously confirmed that one of its Adir jets successfully intercepted a cruise missile and has remained instrumental to the country’s defensive efforts. 

The F-35I is undoubtedly the best aerial weapon in the IAF’s arsenal. However, the Jewish state’s other airframes, including the F-15I and F-16I, should not be discounted. Each of these airframes contributes different capabilities, and together they create the versatile and robust arsenal Israel needs to defend itself.

About the Author: Maya Carlin 

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: In early July, Ukraine executed a successful drone strike on a Russian ammunition depot in Voronezh Oblast, destroying the facility and highlighting the deficiencies in Russia's air defense capabilities.

-The strike exacerbates Russia's already strained logistical chains and material shortages on the frontlines. British Military Intelligence noted the depot's significant size and its role in supplying munitions, emphasizing the detrimental impact on Russia's attritional warfare strategy.

-This attack underscores the ongoing challenges faced by the Russian military, which has resorted to using outdated equipment and seeking support from foreign partners like Iran and North Korea. The Ukrainian military's access to long-range precision munitions, such as HIMARS and MLRS, has been pivotal in targeting high-value assets within Russia.

Ukraine's Precision Attack Deepens Russian Military Shortages

Ukraine’s forces took out a big ammunition depot inside Russia with a suicide drone, highlighting the shortcomings of the Russian military’s air defense capabilities, while also deepening ongoing materiel shortages in the frontlines.

Ukrainian Drone Strike  

In early July, the Ukrainian military launched a drone strike against a Russian ammunition storage depot near Sergeerka, Voronezh Oblast in Russia. As a result of the strike, the Russian ammunition storage depot was almost completely destroyed, as well as nearby facilities, according to open-source reporting.

“This is a significant loss at a depot that reportedly covered approximately 9 square kilometres. The depot was highly likely storing a mixture of surface-to-surface munitions as well as small arms to be used by personnel on the frontlines,” British Military Intelligence assessed in its latest estimate of the war.

“This will further stretch Russia’s already struggling logistics chains and force yet more dispersals due to the continued threat of Ukrainian strikes,” British Military Intelligence added.

Almost 900 days of intense fighting have stretched Russia’s military resources thin. The Kremlin has had to take out of storage main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and artillery pieces built in the 1950s. Moreover, Russian troops don’t have enough tactical vehicles to support their offensive operations and they are relying on golf carts to go into battle.

The Ukrainian drone strike also highlights the poor state of Russia’s air defenses: they can’t even protect a high-value target that is located very close to the frontlines.

“Such shortcomings will almost certainly see further losses to other well-planned Ukrainian strikes,” British Military Intelligence assessed.

“Russia can ill afford such losses considering the attritional warfare strategy it has adopted, which shows little regard for the lives of its soldiers. This approach requires huge amounts of ammunition,” the British Military Intelligence concluded.

To make up for ammunition and weapon shortages, the Kremlin has been dealing with foreign partners, such as Iran and North Korea, to ensure that its troops on the frontlines have the bare minimum they need to fight. Iranian drones, particularly the Shahed unmanned aerial systems, have proven very capable and deadly. However, the overall quality of the foreign munitions and weapons used by the Russian forces on the frontlines isn’t the best.

In previous months, the Ukrainian military has started targeting and taking out high-value targets inside Russia; the attacks have been occurring with the acquiescence of the West, which provides the vast majority of Ukraine’s arsenal.

The introduction of long-range precision munitions to the Ukrainian arsenal has allowed for accurate strikes against Russian high-value targets inside Ukraine as well. The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) have been the bane of Russian ammunition depots, command and control centers, and other logistical hubs close to the frontlines.

The Russian military continues to be under serious strain, with its losses exceeding 560,000 men killed, wounded, or captured.

About the Author 

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

All images are Creative Commons and or Shutterstock. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy's Ford-class aircraft carriers, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, are the most advanced and expensive in the world, costing around $13.3 billion each and $726 million annually to maintain. Despite their capabilities, these carriers face significant threats from advanced anti-ship missiles and A2/AD systems, making their survival in combat questionable.

-The high costs and strategic vulnerabilities raise concerns about their viability, especially given America's rising national debt and economic constraints.

-Critics argue that the U.S. cannot afford to continue its reliance on such costly and potentially vulnerable platforms.

America Can’t Afford the Ford-class Carrier

The U.S. Navy loves its aircraft carriers. Ever since they proved themselves as the premier naval power projection platform in the fiery cauldron of the Second World War’s Pacific Theater, the Navy has prized these systems. America led the world in innovating this unique platform and retains the world’s dominant fleet of flattops. 

Of 11 U.S. carriers, 10 belong to the Nimitz class, and the newest carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford, belongs to the newly minted Ford class of carriers. (USS Enterprise, USS John F. Kennedy, and USS Doris Miller are all coming online as part of this family.) 

Officially, the Navy website describes USS Gerald R. Ford’s as being “the most capable, adaptable, and lethal combat platform in the world, maintaining the Navy’s capacity to project power on a global scale through sustained operations at sea.” 

The Navy Doesn’t Get It

This flowery description misses the mark, though. In reality, Gerald R. Ford is an unaffordable mess-heap; a hodgepodge of some of the most advanced technologies the Navy had access to, thrown together, and sent forward as the next-generation platform without much thought to price or efficacy. Indeed, the advent of technologies, like advanced anti-ship missiles, as well as the wider threat that anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) poses to the very existence of aircraft carriers, makes the survival of carriers in combat very low. 

Here's a snapshot of what I’m referring to: After the heinous October 7 terrorist attacks conducted by Iran-backed Hamas against neighboring Israel, the U.S. Navy deployed USS Gerald R. Ford to the region. But rumors abounded that the Navy wanted to keep the Ford at a distance from the shores of the region, fearing that Hezbollah’s anti-ship missiles posed a danger to the newly minted carrier. 

It doesn’t really matter whether the Hezbollah anti-ship missile threat posed a significant danger or not. The fact that American naval strategists wanted to stymie the deployment of their newfangled carrier too close to hostile shores shows how vulnerable these systems are. 

So, is the Gerald R. Ford class worth the expenditure of time, finite resources, and money?

Let’s first address the cost of these monstrosities. 

A Cost Like No Other

The first unit of this new class of carrier, the aforementioned USS Gerald R. Ford, cost an astonishing $13.3 billion to build. It also took a decade to build. This, in turn, ensured the costs of the program would increase. 

And as for maintaining this massive, highly complex system, that will cost around $726 million per year (this includes the cost of personnel, fuel, maintenance, and the airwing).

Proponents of this costly and complex system argue that USS Gerald R. Ford, being the first of her class, was always going to be an expensive system. Subsequent units, such as John F. Kennedy or Doris Miller will be substantially lower in cost to produce. In fact, these proponents insist that these boats are “now slated to cost about $5 billion per ship less than its predecessor, the Nimitz class, over the life of the ship,” according to Breaking Defense.

Bear in mind that these are all projections and most defense budgeting projections are rarely accurate. 

At $13 billion to produce, and nearly $1 billion to maintain, what do you think might happen if the US were to lose even one of these boats in combat? 

Well, America’s foes are certainly envisioning such a reality. China’s leadership has already stated they plan to sink at least three aircraft carriers with their complex arsenal of A2/AD systems, if war erupted between themselves and the United States. You’ve seen how U.S. carrier operations were complicated by the Houthi as well as Hamas anti-ship threats. 

These Aircraft Carriers are Useless in the Face of America’s Debt Bomb

This doesn’t even scratch the overarching matter of the pending debt bomb that is set to detonate soon in the United States economy. 

Interest repayments on America’s elephantine national debt today outstrip the overall cost of national defense. America simply cannot afford to go on the way that it has when it comes to defense spending.

And anything that can’t last, won’t. What this means for the Gerald R. Ford-class carrier is that they are an impossible dream concocted by Inside-the-Beltway types who just want to engorge themselves at the trough of the people’s tax dollars. That money is soon to evaporate, though, in a whirlwind of debt repayments and devaluation. 

The United States literally cannot afford its love affair with aircraft carriers anymore.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. Main image is from a fire aboard USS John F. Kennedy in 1968.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: Israel's Merkava main battle tanks demonstrated their capabilities when a Hezbollah strike was intercepted by the Trophy active protection system. The Merkava, a critical component of the Israeli Armored Corps, is highly regarded alongside the U.S. Abrams and Britain's Challenger 2.

-Developed post-1973 Yom Kippur War to protect its crew, the tank features thick armor, a unique engine layout, and powerful armaments, including a 120 mm main gun.

-The latest fifth-generation "Barak" variant enhances intelligence and situational awareness with advanced sensors and a 360-degree Elbit helmet. The Merkava remains a cornerstone of Israel's defense strategy.

Israel’s Merkava Tank Profile

The Israeli military’s Merkava main battle tanks again proved their worth after a recent Hezbollah strike. 

The Iran-backed terror group claimed one of its Almas missiles struck an Israeli Merkava earlier this month. But analysis of a video shared by Hezbollah suggests the tank was able to employ its Trophy active protection system to detect and intercept the incoming projectile. 

The Merkava is the backbone of the Israeli Armored Corps and is widely considered as capable as more well-known Western MBTs including the U.S. Abrams and Britain’s Challenger 2. The Merkava platform is instrumental to Israel’s defensive strategy.

An Overview of the Merkava

During Israel’s early days as an independent nation after World War II, it quickly realized its need for protection against hostile neighbors. Until the 1960s, the Jewish state largely relied on joint projects and weapons deliveries from other nations. The IDF collaborated with the British to develop a Chieftain MBT variant, but the UK nixed this program since Chieftain tanks were already being supplied to Arab countries. Former IDF General Israel Tal then kickstarted plans to develop a completely homegrown MBT. 

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel’s armored corps suffered greatly during coordinated attacks launched by Egypt and Syria in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. Their enemies were equipped with some of the latest Soviet-designed tank variants of the time, and Israel’s own arsenal of less advanced MBTs could not keep up. For this reason, the Merkava tank would be built first and foremost to limit casualties.

Specs & Capabilities

In order to better protect its crew members, the Merkava was built with thick armor. The layout of the engine transmission was reversed in order to provide an extra level of protection for soldiers. This unique positioning also increased storage capacity and access for the tank’s operators. 

In terms of armaments, the Merkava has always packed a punch. The latest variant sports an IMI 120 mm L44 main gun, a 7.62 mm light machine gun, and an M2 Browning .50-caliber heavy machine gun. The tank’s main gun can also fire armor-piercing and high-explosive shells.

The Trophy active protection system might be the tank’s best attribute. This homegrown system protects the MBT from anti-tank rockets, high-explosive anti-tank rounds, anti-tank guided missiles, and other projectiles. It also increases the crew’s survivability by enhancing the MBT’s capacity to detect enemy tanks.

Introducing the “Barak” Merkava Variant

Last year, the IDF and Israel’s Defense Ministry revealed the fifth-generation “Barak” Merkava MBT after years of development. 

The Ministry detailed that the tanks are equipped with a “wide infrastructure of reliable sensors” that enabled better intelligence information: “The Barak tank will strengthen the capabilities of detecting enemies and will enable fighting against an enemy with a reduced signature and in all combat scenarios, on the current and future battlefield, against the entirety of threats that exist for the maneuvering force,” the Ministry added. The Barak variant will also provide a 360-degree Elbit helmet, which will provide the crew commander with a full view of their surroundings.

Considering the Merkava’s popularity, it is unlikely that the Israeli military will give up on its tried and tested tank series in the near future.

About the Author: Maya Carlin

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

All images are Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

The Israeli leader defended the war in Gaza, but his visit was overshadowed by U.S. politics.

Summary and Key Points: The conflict in Ukraine is straining both sides, with Ukraine and Russia stretching their resources to continue the fight. Ukrainian Commander Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi noted that Russia has significantly increased its troop numbers, now committing around 520,000 soldiers, with plans to reach 700,000.

-Daily Russian losses exceed 1,000, highlighting issues such as inadequate training. Meanwhile, Ukraine's volunteer force faces manpower shortages, leading to an older average age of infantrymen on the frontlines, estimated between 40 and 45 years.

-Despite the prolonged conflict, Ukraine has avoided a mandatory draft to preserve its younger population for post-war rebuilding.

The Unending Ukraine War 

The fighting in Ukraine is pushing both sides to their limits. Ukraine and Russia are scraping the barrel to find men and weapons to fight the war. 

Balance of Power in the Ukraine War 

In a recent interview, Ukrainian Commander Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi discussed the balance of power between the two sides. He acknowledged the Russian military has significantly increased its count of troops and the resources dedicated to Ukraine over the past 29 months of warfare. 

According to his estimates, the Russian military and pro-Russian separatist forces are currently committing approximately 520,000 troops to the fighting. He also warned that intelligence indicates the Kremlin is seeking to increase that number to almost 700,000 by the end of the year. 

Based on the daily casualty rates, those numbers seem very accurate indeed. Russian forces have been taking more than 1,000 losses daily for several weeks now. In May and June alone, Moscow lost around 70,000 troops. 

“Russia's ability to continue gradually expanding the amount of manpower and materiel it has committed to Ukraine faces significant constraints in the medium to long term,” the Institute for the Study of War assessed in its latest operational update on the war. 

Syrskyi pointed out that Russian commanders continue to use their troops for short-term tactical gains regardless of losses. This assessment highlights the biggest shortcoming in the Russian military: lack of training. Moscow has troops to use as cannon fodder, but it doesn’t have time to train them for something more. As a result, it throws men and resources against Ukrainian defenses, racking up the death bill. 

“The Russian military has extensively relied on refurbishing stocks of Soviet-era weapons and military equipment to sustain the tempo of its offensive operations in Ukraine in order to avoid fully mobilizing the Russian economy and society to a war-time footing, and Ukrainian authorities have noted that Russia is currently not producing enough to cover its current equipment losses in Ukraine,” the Institute for the Study of War added. 

Ukrainian Reservations 

“Syrskyi's statement is not indicative of a sudden increase in the Russian military's presence in Ukraine and is instead representative of the manpower and material disadvantage that Ukrainian forces have faced for over two years,” the Institute for the Study of War stated.

Despite fighting an existential conflict for almost 900 days, the Ukrainian government hasn’t issued a mandatory draft for all males. Its military remains a largely volunteer force. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government have stretched the age limits for military volunteers, but Kyiv has not imposed stricter measures. The reason is simple: They want to have young people alive once the war ends to rebuild the country and mend its wounds. 

However, the lack of troops is forcing the Ukrainian military to fight with older men. A recent intelligence report by the British Military Intelligence estimated that the average age of a Ukrainian infantryman on the frontlines today is between 40 and 45 years old. That is a lot, and the rigors of combat remain the same as in previous conflicts despite technological advances. 

About the Author

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

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock. 

/ France, Élections, Extrême droite - Politique / France, Élections, Extrême droite - Politique

Summary and Key Points: Russia's newest strategic bomber, the Tupolev PAK DA "Poslannik," aims to replace the aging Tu-95 Bear. This long-range, stealth aircraft emphasizes stealth over speed, with a range of 12,000 km and a payload capacity of 30 tons, including nuclear and hypersonic missiles.

-However, the PAK DA faces significant delays, primarily due to engine issues and resource diversion to the Ukraine War. Initially set to be demonstrated in 2023, the plane's readiness has been pushed to 2027.

-This delay creates a strategic gap for Russia, especially as the U.S. and China advance their own stealth bomber technologies.

Russia's PAK DA Bomber: Stealth Over Speed for Future Warfare

Codenamed “Poslannik,” (which means “envoy” or “messenger” in Russian), Russia’s Tupolev PAK DA bomber is the Russian Aerospace Forces’ newest toy. It is a long-range, stealth strategic bomber that is intended to ultimately replace the aging Tu-95 Bear bomber. The Poslannik has a projected range of 12,000 km (7,500 miles) and can stay airborne for 30 hours while carrying a nuclear payload. 

Russia’s new warbird is a bit of a slowpoke. It cannot reach supersonic speeds. But, according to the designers of the Tu PAK DA, their emphasis was less on speed and more on stealth capabilities. 

In fact, the plane’s designers have argued that the plane’s slower speed allows it to carry a larger payload package that not only includes nuclear weapons, but Russia’s innovative hypersonic missiles. The Poslannik bomber is rumored to have a payload capacity of 30 tons, which exceeds the US Air Force’s B-2 stealth bomber maximum payload capacity. In fact, the PAK DA bomber has elements that stealth plane geeks would recognize from America’s B-2 stealth bomber plane. 

Like American stealth bombers, the Russian Tu-PAK DA is commanded by a powerful suite of sophisticated computers that do everything from maintaining flight control to monitoring enemy movements. 

The PAK DA Looks Like a Marvel Comic Book Villain’s Plane

The Tupolev designers believe that the PAK DA’s superior stealth technology coupled with its ability to launch hypersonic payloads negates the need to outrun enemy air defenses. Although, it should be noted that a persistent problem in Russian bomber design has been its engines. When Tupolev designed the Tu-95, for example, they opted to make the long-range nuclear-capable bomber a turbo-prop-driven plane rather than a turbojet-driven plane, as the American B-52 Stratofortress is. 

It is possible that the Russians are again having issues with their engines for this new, fifth-generation stealth bomber and they are simply opting out of acquiring more powerful engines altogether.

Looking like something that a Marvel Comic book villain would fly, the Tupolev PAK DA is probably Russia’s best attempt at employing stealth technology. I say “probably” because the warbird has yet to take flight. Russian sources report that Moscow plans to deploy the Tu-PAK DA Poslannik in service at some pointbetween now and 2027, with most acknowledging that it’ll be closer to 2027. The issue at hand for Russia is the longer the stealth bomber’s deployment is delayed, the greater the capabilities gap exists in Russia’s offensive air capabilities.

In the meantime, the Russians have upgraded their Tu-160 “White Swan” bombers to continue fulfilling mission critical roles. Although, these planes are not of the fifth-generation series and, therefore, Moscow wants to ultimately place the Tu-PAK DA’s as their lead bomber in today’s age of anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) warfare. This has led to some speculation in the West that the Tu-PAK DA Poslannik will never fly. 

After all, it has been in development since 2007. 

Faced with delays for 17 years (and still counting), whatever progress has been made on the planes, now that the Ukraine War has erupted and is diverting considerable Russian resources away from such projects, like the Tu-PAK DA bomber, one can anticipate more delays.

The PAK DA is Not Ready for Showtime

The Russians have been lying for a few years about how far along they are with the Tu-PAK DA’s development. After all, the Russians were supposed to have a demonstration plane ready for use by 2023. Now, Russia’s defense ministry says it won’t be until next year, two years after it was originally supposed to be ready for use, that a demonstration Tu-PAK DA will be available.

And the longer the delay lasts for the deployment of the Tu-PAK DA, the greater the capabilities gap is for Russia’s air force. Not only have the Americans outpaced the Russians with the recent successful demonstration of the B-21 bomber, but the Chinese have gotten their own long-range stealth bomber, the H-20, which Beijing claims can “out-bomb” US Air Force facilities in the Indo-Pacific.

One thing that is working in Russia’s favor is the fact that the Ukraine War has forced its manufacturing sector to go on a war-footing—where it will likely remain for some time to come. 

Will Russia Be Able to Keep Up with Stealth Planes?

Still, Russian aerospace firms are having difficulty meeting increased demand for their products. This has especially been felt in the Su-35 series, a “fourth-generation ++” warplane. Nevertheless, the Russians have remained in the fight. What’s more, as I have noted previously, the Russians are winning and are likely to defeat Ukraine (and their NATO backers) simply through attrition. 

Inevitably, the Russians will have to prioritize the creation of their Tu-PAK DA bomber. 

Otherwise, they will have left a significant strategic gap for the Americans to fly through with their B-21. 

As an American, I hope this remains the case. Although, after two years of the Ukraine War, the Americans should learn never to underestimate the Russians. Theirs is a society that is compelled by necessity, the kind of necessity that total war brings. At some point, they’ll get the Tu-PAK DA right.

About the Author

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

All images are Creative Commons. 

Summary and Key Points: The U.S. is lagging behind China and Russia in developing hypersonic weapons, which are advanced systems capable of evading most current defenses due to their high speed and maneuverability. Despite having the lead time and resources, the U.S. did not prioritize these technologies, allowing its rivals to gain a strategic advantage.

-Russia has deployed hypersonic weapons operationally, and China has made significant strides, including building the world's largest hypersonic wind tunnel and conducting successful tests.

-This technological gap poses a serious concern for U.S. defense policymakers, suggesting a need for focused investment similar to a "Manhattan Project" for hypersonic weapons.

America Remains Behind China and Russia in Hypersonic Capabilities 

The U.S. is finding out the hard way what happens when a country fails to innovate their way of war in a dynamic threat environment. 

Hypersonic weapons are not new technologies. They’ve been with us since the Cold War. Over the last 10 years, however, there has been a surge in the development and production of these systems. Traveling at eye-popping speeds, these weapons are capable of maneuvering in unpredictable ways that make tracking and shooting them down very difficult. 

Despite enjoying considerable lead time to develop such systems during America’s so-called unipolar moment, the U.S. military failed to prioritize these systems. America’s rising rivals China and Russia sought to build these systems, and they did. 

We’re Number Three

Today, the United States is behind in the race for viable hypersonic weapons. Not only is China ahead of the U.S., but so is the Russian military, which fields both a cruise missile version of a hypersonic weapon and a longer-range platform that can reach deep within the United States. Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, the hypersonic weapons the U.S. is faced with today can evade most of America’s homeland defenses, giving America’s foes real strategic advantages. 

Some reading this will likely argue that the Americans are making progress on the development of their own system. Indeed, the Americans are making headway. But they find themselves in an unenviable third place. This should be of grave concern to Washington’s policymakers. 

In the case of Russia, Moscow has proven that it is able to both build and deploy their hypersonic weapons in combat. Indeed, recent news indicates that the Russian flotilla that was sent to Cuba had with it a naval platform capable of firing the Russian hypersonic weapons. This was an implied threat to the United States that Russian forces, regardless of the retaliatory capabilities of the Americans, could come within striking range of America’s East Coast, and launch hypersonic cruise missiles against which the U.S. currently lacks adequate defenses.

 

The guardians of conventional thinking insist that the Russian systems are all hype. This is a ridiculous notion not borne out by the facts. 

China’s Capabilities

They say similar things about the Chinese systems. Again, the Chinese have developed far more sophisticated hypersonic capabilities than the Americans. 

Back in 2023, China announced the opening of the world’s largest hypersonic wind tunnel, a key piece for testing hypersonic technology. China again shocked the world when it tested a long-range hypersonic weapon that circumnavigated the world repeatedly before coming down within 20 miles of its intended target deep inside the Gobi Desert. 

What’s more, thanks to their real-world tests, China’s scientists are figuring out how to maintain control over their hypersonic systems even as they re-enter the atmosphere and are encased in superheated plasma, by using a combination of 6G internet and lasers to beam signals that can penetrate the plasma field.

America Behind 

America is behind. Dangerously. For all the money that is spent on defense, it is only recently that any real concentration has been given to developing America’s own hypersonic capabilities. And there are setbacks in the U.S. program. 

Meanwhile, Russia expands its arsenal and China, with their impressive mass production abilities, stand poised to outstrip everyone. An imbalance of forces exists in the hypersonic domain. 

Rather than blowing money on a sixth-generation warplane or another aircraft carrier, perhaps the Pentagon should have a Manhattan Project for hypersonic weapons. 

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

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

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock. Main image is from a fire aboard USS John F. Kennedy in 1968.

From the Vault

Russia Freaked Out: Why the U.S. Navy 'Unretired' the Iowa-Class Battleships

Battleship vs. Battlecruiser: Iowa-Class vs. Russia's Kirov-Class (Who Wins?)

Summary and Key Points: During the RIMPAC 2024 exercise, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber successfully sank the ex-USS Dubuque using GPS-guided bombs, demonstrating the bomber's capability to engage maritime targets. This SINKEX event, part of a larger live-fire exercise involving multiple nations, showcased the effectiveness of coordinated attacks and various weapon systems.

-A second SINKEX saw the sinking of the ex-USS Tarawa, highlighting the use of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).

-These exercises provided valuable data on weapon effectiveness against large warships and underscored the importance of joint force flexibility in neutralizing maritime threats.

An American B-2 Spirit Bomber Just Sank a Warship

During the Second World War, the United States Navy's SBD Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers destroyed four Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carriers at the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942. However, since the Second World War long-range strategic bombers have largely been employed against targets on land not at sea.

That is until this month when a United States Air Force B-2 Spirit aided in the sinking of a warship while employing relatively inexpensive GPS-guided bombs. Of course, it wasn't an enemy vessel, but rather the ex-USS Dubuque (LPD-8) – an Austin-class amphibious transport dock – that was sunk as part of a carefully coordinated SINKEX during the ongoing Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2024 exercise.

"SINKEX, short for 'sink at-sea live-fire training exercises', is a program run by the United States Navy that arranges for decommissioned Naval warships to be used in live-fire training. This gives Navy personnel the opportunity to use real ammunition on practical targets and apply what they learn to future conflict, practicing gunnery, missile drills, torpedo accuracy, and even special warfare operations," explained the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD).

The United States Navy noted that "SINKEXs are conducted only after the area has been surveyed for the presence of people, marine vessels, aircraft, and marine species. SINKEXs are fully compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and a general permit under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act."

Double SINKEX

This year's RIMPAC actually saw two SINKEX events. In addition to the sinking of LPD-8 on July 11, the U.S. Navy also sunk the decommissioned USS Tarawa (LHA-1) eight days later on July 19. Both of the former U.S. Navy warships were sunk in waters more than 15,000 feet deep, and more than 50 nautical miles off the northern coast of Hawaii's Kauai.

"The sinking of the ex-Tarawa included the employment of a Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet. As a precise, stealthy, and survivable cruise missile, LRASM provides multi-service, multi-platform, and multi-mission capabilities for offensive anti-surface warfare," the U.S. Navy said in a statement announcing the successful SINKEX during RIMPAC 2024. "During the SINKEXs, participating units from Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, and the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy gained proficiency in tactics, targeting and live firing against surface ships at sea."

This recent SINKEX was conducted to offer an opportunity to gather data on the effectiveness of various weapons on a large warship, but it will also provide the U.S. Navy with insight into how its flattops can handle an attack.

"Sinking exercises give us a chance to sharpen our skills, learn from one another, and get real-world experience," said U.S. Navy Vice Adm. John Wade, RIMPAC 2024 Combined Task Force Commander. "Using advanced weapons and seeing the professionalism of our teams during these drills shows our commitment to keeping the Indo-Pacific region safe and open."

According to a recent report from TheWarZone, the U.S. Navy had been preparing to employ the ex-LHA-1 in the SINKEX since at least 2022, while her sister ship, the ex-USS Peleliu (LHA-5) could also be used as a future floating target. The ex-USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) was sunk in 2006, while five of the seven Wasp-class amphibious assault ships – which preceded the Tarawa class – were also sunk in past RIMPAC SINKEXs, per TheWarZone.

B-2 Bomber in a SINKEX

As noted, the use of an Air Force bomber in a SINKEX was unique, but it proved that low-cost, air-delivered ordnance could defeat a surface vessel through a "QUICKSINK" demonstration.

"The QUICKSINK experiment is funded by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and aims to provide options to neutralize surface maritime threats while demonstrating the inherent flexibility of the joint force. This capability is an answer to an urgent need to quickly neutralize maritime threats over massive expanses of ocean around the world at minimal costs," the Navy's statement added.

While it would likely be smaller stealth aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II that would be employed against a near-peer adversary's aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force showed that in addition to being able to work together, America's bombers can quickly send a warship to the bottom of the ocean!

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.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is currently unusable due to numerous issues, including outdated technology and damage from a 2019 fire. Despite Russia's advancements in nuclear technology, they lack a modern nuclear-powered carrier. The Soviet-era project Ulyanovsk, intended to be a formidable nuclear supercarrier, was never completed due to the USSR's collapse.

-Though there are claims from Russian Navy officials about developing a new carrier, the timeline and feasibility remain uncertain, especially given Russia's recent military and economic challenges.

The Soviet Supercarrier That Never Was: Ulyanovsk's Unfinished Legacy

Russia’s so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine has sparked a renewed round of interest in the country’s military technologies and weapons systems, though admittedly a lot of that interest stems from morbid curiosity on account of their poor performance.

Among the questions being raised is why Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, isn’t being employed in the ongoing conflict.

Well, it turns out that the Kuznetsov is beset with a whole host of maladies, from reliance on an ultra-thick, tarry black substance called Mazut as its power source, to a 2019 onboard fire that cost 300-350 million rubles in damages.

This in turn begs an additional question: Why doesn’t Russia have a more modern nuclear-powered carrier?

Wherefore Art Thou, Russian Nuclear Aircraft Carrier?

Given Moscow’s developments in other facets of nuclear technology, from land-based nuclear refineries to nuclear submarines-such as the titanic Typhoon class – to nuclear ICBMs such as the new “Sarmat” – why haven’t they also been able to apply that industrial engineering knowhow to aircraft carriers?

Well, as it turns out, the Russkies’ lack of a nuke-powered carrier certainly wasn’t due to a lack of effort or desire.

Back in the mid-1980s, the then-Soviet government conceived a supercarrier project known as Ulyanovsk, named after Vladimir Lenin’s hometown. As noted by columnist Paul Richard Huard explained, “Had she ever sailed, the Soviet supercarrier Ulyanovsk would have been a naval behemoth more than 1,000 feet long, with an 85,000-ton displacement and enough storage to carry an air group of up to 70 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft.”  For the basis of comparison, the U.S. Navy’s USS George H.W. Bush — the most modern and advanced flat-top of the improved Nimitz-class supercarriers — is roughly 1,100 feet long, with a displacement of 102,000 tons fully laden with ammunition and supplies, and a normal carrying capacity of 56 aircraft. The Russian carrier also boasted an impressive arsenal, including P-700 missiles and onboard surface-to-air missile systems.

The Ulyanovsk’s keel was laid in 1988, during which time the Soviet economy was already in dire straits, and three years before the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Even if the USSR hadn’t collapsed, this giant ship was such a large project that builders wouldn’t have finished her until the mid-1990s. Ironically enough, construction took place at the Black Sea Shipyard, aka Nikolayev South Shipyard 444, in Ukraine.

As a bit of gee-whiz historical trivia for you film buffs out there, that is the same shipyard from whence the famous Russian battleship Potemkin — scene of the famous 1905 naval mutiny and the subject of Sergei Eisenstein’s classic film — was launched.

But, of course, the USSR did indeed collapse, and with it went the funding to complete the construction of the Ulyanovsk. As Professor James R. Holmes, holder of the J.C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College, elaborates, “The Soviets weren’t dumb. They wouldn’t spend themselves into oblivion to keep up with the Joneses, and as a great land power, they had enormous claims on their resources to fund the army and air force. There was only so much to go around for ‘luxury fleet’ projects. Bottom line, if you can’t afford to keep the existing fleet at sea, where are you going to get the money to complete your first nuclear-powered supercarrier, a vessel that will demand even more manpower that you can’t afford?”

Resurrecting the Russian Nuke Carrier?

Fast-forward to the present day, and in the intervening years, Vladimir Putin has done much to modernize Russia’s armed forces in the intervening years since Boris Yeltsin replaced Mikhail S. Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War. Whilst Putin’s modernization program certainly included the Russian Navy, aircraft carriers still simply haven’t been a priority.

However, that may change soon, as Russian Navy Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently went on public record proclaiming “The navy will have an aircraft carrier. The research companies are working on it.” Admiral Chirkov did not specify the size or capabilities of this new carrier, nor did he give an estimated timeframe for its keel-laying or its completion.

Given the Russians’ recent failures to meet certain other military timeframes, especially pertaining to their “special military operation in Ukraine,” we probably shouldn’t be holding our collective breaths anytime soon.

About the Author 

Christian D. Orr is a former Air Force 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 and The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security.

Image Credit: Shutterstock and/or Creative Commons.

Summary and Key Points: Russia's ambition to produce the Su-75 "Checkmate," a competitive and cost-effective fifth-generation fighter, has been hindered by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Money problems could be the plane's biggest foe. 

-The conflict has diverted resources and focus towards immediate military needs, slowing the development of advanced systems like the Su-75. The aircraft, designed to be partially stealthy and affordable compared to American models, faces challenges including a lack of foreign buyers, with the UAE withdrawing interest due to geopolitical tensions.

-If Russia overcomes these hurdles, the Su-75 could significantly impact the global fighter aircraft market, but current circumstances make this unlikely.

War in Ukraine Stalls Russia's Su-75 'Checkmate' Fighter Jet Development

Russia is a great power. Unlike other great powers, such as the United States, it favors function over form and often the Russian philosophy is to simply produce systems that are “good enough” for challenging their rivals. This is why the Russian military, despite the headaches they’ve encountered in their illegal war against Ukraine, is defeating their Ukrainian neighbors—even as Russia is forced to increasingly rely on older, less sophisticated, and cheaper-to-produce systems. 

Nevertheless, Russia continues investing in developing next-generation weapons platforms for their military. Moscow has been interested in developing fifth-generation warplanes that not only can compete with those of both the United States and China, but Russian leaders envision making technologically competitive fifth-generation warplanes that are cheaper than their American and Chinese competitors. 

Despite their commitment to building competitive fifth-generation warplanes, Russia has struggled to bring their bold concepts to fruition. The War in Ukraine has not helped them, as Russia’s defense industrial base has had to focus on mass-producing weapons and platforms that are easy to build and can be quickly deployed to the frontline. 

That has forced Russia’s design bureaus to slow down on producing newer, more advanced warbirds, as these systems require greater attention in their development phase than what the Russian defense industrial base wants to dedicate to it.

In previous posts, I have detailed the problems that the Sukhoi Design Bureau, one of Russia’s premier defense contractors, has encountered in mass producing their much-ballyhooed fifth-generation warplane, the Su-57. 

But there is another warbird that is struggling to take flight. This one belonging to another Russian defense firm, Rostec, a subsidiary of Sukhoi Design Bureau. That’s the Su-75 “Checkmate.”

Russia Too Focused on Ukraine to Build the Su-75

Here again, Russia’s vision for a future bird has outstripped its capacity to produce them. As I have written before, do not underestimate the Russians. Especially as their defense industrial base and war economy are turbocharged by the Ukraine War at a time when America’s and Europe’s defense industrial bases are being drained by that same conflict. 

The Su-75 is an interesting plane, though. And if the Russians ever did figure out how to make it as affordably as they want to, the Russians would have a clear advantage over their American rivals. Sure, the Americans are already talking about retiring their older fifth-generation warplanes and are well into developing a sixth-generation bird. 

But who among us can say that, with the exception of the F-22A Raptor (which is the plane that the Air Force is trying to retire), America’s fifth-generation birds have been anything other than unnecessary? 

Or that a costly, hard-to-produce sixth-generation bird is worth the investment?

And it’s clear that the world remains steadfastly committed to the fifth-generation warplane, hence the reason behind every major country either seeking to purchase a fifth-generation warplane or to build one of their own. As with all complex systems, the matter is one of cost and time. The Russian Su-75 could remove the biggest barrier of all—cost—if their defense industrial base has the time to work out the kinks. 

The Su-75 Specifications 

The Su-75 Checkmate is a lower-cost fifth-generation warplane because it is only partly truly stealthy. Whereas America’s F-22A Raptor and F-35 Lightning II are totally stealth, the proposed Su-75 has much of its stealthiness located in the front half of the bird. 

Described as a “light tactical fighter,” the Su-75 Checkmate will have five internal weapons bays (to enhance its stealthy appearance). It will carry both guided and unguided weapons into battle. The RVV-MD short-range missile and the RVV-SD long-range missile make up its guided munitions. Checkmate’s ground-attack capabilities will include precision-guided munitions, such as the X-31PD missile, as well as the KH-35UE.

The Su-75’s designers claim the bird can be flown in tandem with unmanned aerial vehicles, enhancing its lethality.

A single NPO Saturn AL-51F-1 engine powers this warbird. It produces around 18,000 kilogram force (KGF) thrust, with a total thrust of around 36,000 kgf. So, this bird is packing a potent engine. The Checkmate can cruise at a maximum speed of around Mach 1.8, with a range of about 1,900 miles. 

Losing Foreign Buyers

At $30 million per unit, this bird would be appealing to countries seeking access to fifth-generation warplanes but at a lower cost than what the American F-35 is going for. Too bad for Russia, its one foreign buyer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) appears to have backed out in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and is now purchasing a block of F-35s from the United States.

Still, if the Russians were ever able to take this bird off the drawing board, especially if they can end the Ukraine War soon—and keep the costs down—the Su-75 could be a real boon for Russia. Until then, this is a bird with nowhere to fly to. Russia is seeking foreign buyers because Moscow understands that it cannot produce such planes only for its military and expect costs to remain low. 

Yet, without significant foreign interest—which is greatly lacking—the Su-75 won't ever fly. 

About the Author

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

Main image is from Shutterstock. All other images are Creative Commons.