Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"There are stars whose radiance is visible on Earth though they have long been extinct. There are people whose brilliance continues to light the world even though they are no longer among the living. These lights are particularly bright when the night is dark. They light the way for humankind."

– Hannah Szenes

"None of us is as smart as all of us."

– Phil Condit

"People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone."

– Audrey Hepburn

1. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 30, 2024

2. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, March 30, 2024

3. Baltimore bridge collapse: Powerful crane linked to CIA secret Cold War mission arrives to clean up debris

4. Philippines boosts maritime security as China tension rises

5. China issues travel advisory to citizens visiting the US, warning of ‘unwarranted interrogations and harassment’

6. U.S. and Israel’s ‘Unprecedented’ Intelligence Sharing Draws Criticism

7. AT&T Says Data From 73 Million Accounts Were Leaked to Dark Web

8. Henry Huiyao Wang and Graham Allison in Conversation on Escaping Thucydides’ Trap

9. Biden’s plan for Gaza pier endangers U.S. troops, experts warn

10. Opinion | The internet was supposed to make humanity smarter. It’s failing.

11. Turning the tools of propagandists against themselves

12. What A Missed Terror Warning Says About U.S.-Russian Ties And Putin's Thinking

13. This US state is not covered by the NATO treaty. Some experts say that needs to change

14. A Russian Defector’s Killing Raises Specter of Hit Squads

15. We Still Haven’t Figured Out How to Beat ISIS

16. This Is the World's Most Dangerous Country

1. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 30, 2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-30-2024

Key Takeaways:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicated that delays in American security assistance have forced Ukraine to cede the battlefield initiative, not contest the battlefield initiative, and continue to threaten Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Russian missile strikes destroyed one of the largest thermal power plants in Kharkiv Oblast on March 22, as continued delays in US security assistance degrade Ukraine’s air defense umbrella and increase Russia’s ability to significantly damage Ukraine’s energy grid.
Russian forces are demonstrating technological and tactical adaptations and are increasingly using unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) on the frontlines of Donetsk Oblast.
The Russian military is reportedly forming mobile fire groups to mitigate against Ukrainian drone strike threats but will likely struggle to field these groups at the required scale in the near term.
Russian authorities continue to escalate legal pressure against migrants in the wake of the March 22 Crocus City Hall attack, prompting both Russian authorities to increase deportations and migrants to voluntarily leave Russia.
Positional engagements continued throughout the theater on March 30.
Russian mobilized personnel continue to suffer high casualties while fighting in Ukraine.

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MARCH 30, 2024

Mar 30, 2024 - ISW Press

Download the PDF

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 30, 2024

Riley Bailey, Grace Mappes, Angelica Evans, Kateryna Stepanenko, and George Barros

March 30, 2024, 6:55pm ET

Click here to see ISW’s interactive map of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report.

Click here to see ISW’s 3D control of terrain topographic map of Ukraine. Use of a computer (not a mobile device) is strongly recommended for using this data-heavy tool.

Click here to access ISW’s archive of interactive time-lapse maps of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These maps complement the static control-of-terrain map that ISW produces daily by showing a dynamic frontline. ISW will update this time-lapse map archive monthly.

Note: The data cut-off for this product was 1:30pm ET on March 30. ISW will cover subsequent reports in the March 31 Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicated that delays in American security assistance have forced Ukraine to cede the battlefield initiative and that these delays continue to threaten Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. The Washington Post published excerpts of an interview with Zelensky on March 29 in which Zelensky stated that Ukraine will not be able to defend its territory without American support, as Ukraine currently relies on air defense systems and missiles, electronic warfare jammers, and 155mm artillery shells from the United States.[1] Zelensky stated that continued materiel shortages will force the Ukrainian military to cede more Ukrainian territory and people “step by step” since a smaller but more stable frontline is preferable to a larger but unstable front that Russian forces could exploit to achieve a breakthrough. Zelensky stated that Ukrainian forces are “trying to find some way not to retreat” from unspecified frontline areas and noted that Ukrainian forces have stabilized the front near Avdiivka, Donetsk Oblast. Zelensky reiterated that the Ukrainian military’s planning ability to make decisions is contingent on US military assistance and that Ukraine cannot plan counteroffensive efforts without knowing whether Ukraine will receive US military assistance, and what future US military assistance will entail. Zelensky warned that Russia will exploit any future scenarios in which Ukraine must cede the initiative: “If you are not taking steps forward to prepare another counteroffensive, Russia will take [these steps].” Zelensky also stated that Ukraine has learned that “if you don’t do it, Russia will do it.” Zelensky also indicated that Ukraine is conducting rear-area strikes against Russian oil refineries to generate strategic effects as Ukraine cannot plan for or conduct counteroffensive operations without more information about US military assistance. Zelensky stated that Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil refineries and other strategic targets are in response to Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Zelensky’s interview is consistent with Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi’s recent statements that delays in Western military assistance are constraining Ukrainian forces and that Ukrainian forces are not able to completely compensate for battlefield shortcomings caused by material shortages.[2]

Russian missile strikes destroyed one of the largest thermal power plants in Kharkiv Oblast on March 22, as continued delays in US security assistance degrade Ukraine’s air defense umbrella and increase Russia’s ability to significantly damage Ukraine’s energy grid. Ukrainian electric company Tsentrenergo reported on March 29 that Russian missile strikes destroyed all power units and auxiliary equipment at the Zmiivska Thermal Power Plant (TPP) in Kharkiv Oblast on March 22.[3] Russian forces conducted the largest series of combined drone and missile strikes targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure on the night of March 21 to 22 since the start of the full-scale invasion and have since heavily targeted Ukrainian energy infrastructure, including hydroelectric power plants (HPPs).[4] Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy facilities may aim to degrade Ukrainian defense industrial capacity, and Russian forces are likely trying to exploit Ukraine’s degraded air defense umbrella to collapse Ukraine’s energy grid.[5] The Washington Post reported on March 29 that Ukraine’s largest private energy company DTEK stated that Russian drones and missiles are increasingly penetrating Ukraine’s air defense and that more accurate and concentrated Russian strikes are inflicting greater damage against Ukrainian energy facilities.[6] Previous Russian strikes have recently rendered other Ukrainian energy facilities inoperable before, but the complete destruction of a TPP is rare and notable, and the recently accelerated degradation of Ukraine’s energy generation capabilities, if left unchecked, will likely constrain Ukraine’s ability to stabilize future disruptions to its energy grid in the long term.[7]

Russian forces are demonstrating technological and tactical adaptations and are increasingly using unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) on the frontlines of Donetsk Oblast. Russian and Ukrainian sources amplified footage on March 29 and 30 showing Ukrainian forces striking Russian unmanned ground vehicles in southeastern Berdychi (northwest of Avdiivka) and in the Bakhmut direction.[8] Russian milbloggers claimed that these UGVs are equipped with AGS-17 grenade launcher systems, which reportedly can fire 50 to 400 grenades per minute.[9] Russian sources also amplified footage of other Russian small wheeled and tracked unmanned ground drones operating in unspecified areas, which Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) expert Samuel Bendett assessed to be involved in intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), logistics, personnel evacuations, and light combat roles.[10] The US and NATO should study the rapidly evolving battlefield in Ukraine to develop a deeper understanding of the future of warfare and the characteristics of future warfare.

The Russian military is reportedly forming mobile fire groups to mitigate against Ukrainian drone strike threats but will likely struggle to field these groups at the required scale in the near term. Russian state outlet Izvestia reported on March 29 that Russian military sources stated that the Russian military is forming mobile fire groups within unspecified combined arms armies (CAAs) and air force and air defense armies to combat drones, and will equip these groups with thermal imagers, electronic warfare (EW) systems, and machine guns mounted on pickup trucks.[11] Izvestia did not report where the Russian military intends to field the mobile fire groups or the size or echelon of these groups. The Russian military notably faces Ukrainian drone threats both within occupied Ukraine as well as within Russia at oil refineries and other critical infrastructure supporting Russia’s war effort, and it is unclear if these mobile groups will be able to defend the extent of territory that Ukrainian drones target.[12] Izvestia’s description of the Russian mobile fire groups is similar to Ukrainian tactical mobile fire groups, which the Ukrainian military started to deploy at scale in the spring of 2023 to defend against routine Russian Shahed-136/131 drone strikes.[13] Ukrainian forces have long been conducting drone strikes against Russian targets in occupied Ukraine, and the Russian military command’s decision to form the mobile fire groups is likely in response to the recent intensification of Ukrainian drone strikes against Russian oil refineries in February and March.[14]

The Russian Ministry of Energy is reportedly working with Rosgvardia to deploy Pantsir-S1 air defense systems to strategic energy facilities within Russia, but Russian ultranationalists have complained that Russian bureaucracy and a Russian priority defending critical assets in the vicinity of Moscow and St. Petersburg are hampering these efforts.[15] The formation of the mobile fire groups indicates that Russia may be unable to deploy conventional air defense systems, such as Pantsir-S1 or S-300 /400 systems, to all critical facilities within western Russia. Russian forces will be more likely to successfully field mobile groups within occupied Ukraine, where there is relatively less airspace to cover and fewer possible Ukrainian flight vectors for Ukrainian drones, than within western Russia. Russian forces appear to struggle with properly deploying short-range air defense systems along expected flight vectors for Ukrainian drones, and the Russian military appears to have even failed to cover important potential targets in reportedly well-defended areas within Russia.[16] The mass deployment of mobile fire groups throughout western Russia could pose similar challenges for Russian forces, as the Russian military may not be able to sufficiently field the groups at scale.

Russian authorities continue to escalate legal pressure against migrants in the wake of the March 22 Crocus City Hall attack, prompting both Russian authorities to increase deportations and migrants to voluntarily leave Russia. Russian human rights project First Department reported on March 29 that St. Petersburg authorities have launched “Operation Anti-Migrant" and are conducting a large-scale operation to identify and deport migrants who reportedly violated migration laws from Russia.[17] One of First Department’s lawyers stated that Russian law enforcement is conducting raids on hostels and apartments in St. Petersburg and that temporary detention centers in St. Petersburg are overcrowded with migrants. The lawyer stated that Russian authorities deported 64 foreign citizens on March 28 and estimated that Russian authorities deported enough migrants to fill two full planes that recently flew from St. Petersburg to an unspecified destination. Russian opposition news outlet Astra reported on March 30 that more than 400 St. Petersburg police officers and Rosgvardia personnel are participating in the operation and that St. Petersburg police have inspected the paperwork of almost 1,500 foreign citizens, issued several hundred administrative violations, and initiated 10 criminal cases during the operation so far.[18] St. Petersburg City Courts Joint Press Service Head Daria Lebedeva stated that St. Petersburg courts over the past week ruled to forcibly deport 418 migrants and ordered an additional 48 migrants (who had been living in the city) to pay a fine and voluntarily leave Russia for violating migration laws.[19] Kremlin newswire TASS reported that Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officers detained three Central Asian migrants accused of preparing to conduct a terrorist attack at an unspecified mass gathering in Stavropol Oblast.[20] Tajikistan’s Deputy Minister of Labor, Migration, and Employment Shakhnoza Nodiri stated that Tajikistan has observed an outflow of Tajik migrants from Russia following the Crocus attack and that many Tajik migrants are calling the Tajik government stating that they want to leave Russia out of fear and panic.[21] Nodiri stated that more people are entering Tajikistan than leaving, but that the government expects the outflow of Tajik migrants from Russia to be a temporary phenomenon.

Russian officials have thus far charged nine people for their supposed involvement in the Crocus attack, all of whom Russian authorities have identified as citizens of Tajikistan.[22] The BBC News Russian Service reported on March 27 that Russian authorities have significantly increased the number of criminal cases initiated for migration law violations since the Crocus attack, particularly against Tajik citizens.[23] Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported that Russian citizens from ethnic minorities and migrants in Russia have grown increasingly concerned about ethnically motivated crimes and xenophobic rhetoric in the aftermath of the Crocus attack, and First Department similarly noted that anti-migrant and xenophobic sentiments have risen sharply in Russia following the attack.[24] The Russian ultranationalist community has intensified its calls for anti-migrant policies, and Russian officials recently proposed policies, such as limiting the entrance of migrants to Russia, introducing harsher punishments for crimes committed by migrants, and abolishing Russia’s visa-free regime with Central Asia countries.[25] Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concern over heightened ethnic tensions in Russian society following the Crocus attack on March 28 and may have signaled to the Russian ultranationalist community that they should stop inflaming ethnic tensions.[26] Russian authorities may seek to detain a larger number of migrants to coerce them into signing military service contracts, given Russia’s previous reliance on migrants and prisoners in its crypto-mobilization campaign.[27] Anti-migrant policies could threaten Russia’s crypto-mobilization efforts and further worsen Russian labor shortages if Russia deports large numbers of migrants or if significant portions of Russia’s migrant communities emigrate, but Russian authorities are unlikely to be willing to give into Russian ultranationalists’ xenophobic demands at the expense of Russia’s war effort.

Key Takeaways:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicated that delays in American security assistance have forced Ukraine to cede the battlefield initiative, not contest the battlefield initiative, and continue to threaten Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Russian missile strikes destroyed one of the largest thermal power plants in Kharkiv Oblast on March 22, as continued delays in US security assistance degrade Ukraine’s air defense umbrella and increase Russia’s ability to significantly damage Ukraine’s energy grid.
Russian forces are demonstrating technological and tactical adaptations and are increasingly using unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) on the frontlines of Donetsk Oblast.
The Russian military is reportedly forming mobile fire groups to mitigate against Ukrainian drone strike threats but will likely struggle to field these groups at the required scale in the near term.
Russian authorities continue to escalate legal pressure against migrants in the wake of the March 22 Crocus City Hall attack, prompting both Russian authorities to increase deportations and migrants to voluntarily leave Russia.
Positional engagements continued throughout the theater on March 30.
Russian mobilized personnel continue to suffer high casualties while fighting in Ukraine.

We do not report in detail on Russian war crimes because these activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We will continue to evaluate and report on the effects of these criminal activities on the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian population and specifically on combat in Ukrainian urban areas. We utterly condemn Russian violations of the laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions and crimes against humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.

Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine (comprised of two subordinate main efforts)
Russian Subordinate Main Effort #1 – Capture the remainder of Luhansk Oblast and push westward into eastern Kharkiv Oblast and encircle northern Donetsk Oblast
Russian Subordinate Main Effort #2 – Capture the entirety of Donetsk Oblast
Russian Supporting Effort – Southern Axis
Russian Air, Missile, and Drone Campaign
Russian Mobilization and Force Generation Efforts
Russian Technological Adaptations
Activities in Russian-occupied areas
Ukrainian Defense Industrial Base Efforts
Russian Information Operations and Narratives
Significant Activity in Belarus

Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine

Russian Subordinate Main Effort #1 – Luhansk Oblast (Russian objective: Capture the remainder of Luhansk Oblast and push westward into eastern Kharkiv Oblast and northern Donetsk Oblast)

Positional fighting continued along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line on March 30. Positional fighting occurred northeast of Kupyansk near Synkivka, west of Kreminna near Terny, and 12km south of Kreminna near Bilohorivka.[28] The spokesperson for a Ukrainian detachment operating in the Kupyansk direction stated that Russian forces continue to focus on offensive operations in the Lyman direction and have decreased the tempo of their offensive operations in the Kupyansk direction in recent weeks.[29] The spokesperson stated that Russian forces are currently replenishing and rotating unspecified degraded units that participated in offensive operations in the Kupyansk direction before the March 17 Russian presidential elections.[30] The spokesperson added that Russian forces aim to reach the administrative borders of Luhansk Oblast in the Lyman direction and the east bank of the Oskil River in the Kupyansk direction.[31]

Russian Subordinate Main Effort #2 – Donetsk Oblast (Russian objective: Capture the entirety of Donetsk Oblast, the claimed territory of Russia’s proxies in Donbas)

Russian sources claimed that Russian forces recently resumed assaults in the Siversk direction (northeast of Bakhmut) and made new unconfirmed territorial gains. Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces advanced nearly one kilometer in depth southeast of Rozdolivka (southwest of Siversk) and gained seven square kilometers of territory.[32] A Russian milblogger claimed that elements of the Russian 51st Guards Airborne (VDV) Regiment (106th Guards VDV Division) pushed Ukrainian forces out several unspecified positions on the Vesele-Vyimka line (south and southeast of Siversk, respectively) and that elements of the Russian 137th Guards VDV Regiment (106th Guards VDV Division) drove Ukrainian forces out of their positions west of Vesele and advanced towards Rozdolivka’s southern flank.[33] Elements of the Russian 6th Motorized Rifle Brigade (2nd Luhansk People's Republic [LNR] Army Corps [AC]) reportedly continued to operate near Spirne (southeast of Siversk).[34]

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continued to claim that the Russian Southern Grouping of Forces seized Ivanivske (west of Bakhmut), but ISW has not observed visual evidence confirming these claims at this time.[35] Positional engagements continued northwest of Bakhmut near Bohdanivka; west of Bakhmut near Chasiv Yar and within Ivanivske; and southwest of Bakhmut near Klishchiivka, Andriivka, and Niu York.[36] A commander of a Ukrainian strike drone company reported that Russian forces in the Horlivka direction (southwest of Bakhmut) deployed their artillery systems at a maximum distance away from the frontline in an effort to protect these systems from Ukrainian drone strikes.[37] The commander added that such artillery system deployments are making it challenging for Ukrainian forces to strike them at a longer distance and that Russian forces are setting up decoy traps for Ukrainian strike drones by placing mines on top of false equipment pieces that detonate as the drone approaches the target. The commander also observed that Russian forces remained on the defensive in the Horlivka direction. Elements of the Russian 58th Separate Guards Spetsnaz Battalion (1st Donetsk People’s Republic [DNR] AC) are reportedly operating near Ivanivske.[38]

Russian sources claimed that Russian forces advanced northwest and southwest of Avdiivka on March 29 and March 30. A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian elements of the Southern Grouping of Forces and the 1st AC entered the eastern outskirts of Semenivka (northwest of Avdiivka) and advanced up to 750 meters wide and 200 meters deep in the area.[39] The milblogger added that Russian forces advanced 450 meters wide and 1.4 kilometers in depth within Pervomaiske (southwest of Avdiivka).[40] Russian sources also claimed that Russian forces gained new positions in Berdychi (northwest of Avdiivka).[41] ISW cannot independently verify these claims. Positional battles continued northwest of Avdiivka near Berdychi and Semenivka; west of Avdiivka near Umanske, Orlivka, Tonenke, and Netaylove; and southwest of Avdiivka near Pervomaiske and Nevelske.[42] Elements of the 114th Motorized Rifle Brigade and “Sparta” Reconnaissance Battalion (both part of 1st AC) are reportedly operating near Avdiivka, and elements of the 9th Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st AC) are reportedly operating near Pervomaiske.[43]

Positional engagements continued west and southwest of Donetsk City on March 30 but did not result in any confirmed changes on the frontline. Positional battles continued west of Donetsk City near Krasnohorivka and Heorhiivka and southwest of Donetsk City near Pobieda, Novomykhailivka, and Vodyane.[44] Russian sources claimed that elements of the Russian 238th Artillery Brigade (8th Guards Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]) struck a railway bridge in Kurakhove (west of Donetsk City).[45] The DNR People’s Militia also claimed that Russian forces struck an unspecified infrastructure facility near Paraskoviivka (southwest of Donetsk City) resulting in flooding along a portion of the road connecting the settlement to the 0532 (Kostyantynivka-Marinka) highway.[46] Elements of the Russian 155th Naval Infantry Brigade (Pacific Fleet) and “Tiger” Volunteer Detachment reportedly continued to operate near Novomykhailivka.[47]

Positional engagements continued near the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area on March 30, with neither side advancing. Positional battles continued near Staromayorske (south of Velyka Novosilka) and Pryyutne (southwest of Velyka Novosilka).[48]

Russian Supporting Effort – Southern Axis (Russian objective: Maintain frontline positions and secure rear areas against Ukrainian strikes)

Positional engagements continued in western Zaporizhia Oblast on March 30, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline. Positional engagements continued near Robotyne and northwest of Verbove (east of Robotyne).[49] Ukraine’s Southern Operational Command reported that Russian forces conducted six air strikes with 15 glide bombs in the Orikhiv direction.[50] Elements of the Chechen “Yug-Akhmat” Battalion are reportedly operating in Zaporizhia Oblast and elements of the Russian 64th Motorized Rifle Brigade (35th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Eastern Military District [EMD]) are reportedly operating in the Polohy direction (northeast of Robotyne).[51]

The Ukrainian General Staff reported on March 30 that Russian forces conducted several unsuccessful attacks on Ukrainian positions in the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast, presumably near Krynky.[52]

Russian Air, Missile, and Drone Campaign (Russian Objective: Target Ukrainian military and civilian infrastructure in the rear and on the frontline)

Russian forces conducted a series of missile and drone strikes against targets in Ukraine on March 30. Ukrainian military officials reported on March 30 that Russian forces launched 12 Shahed-136/131 drones from occupied Cape Chauda, Crimea, and four S-300/400 anti-aircraft missiles targeting Donetsk Oblast on the night of March 30.[53] Ukrainian forces downed nine Shahed drones over Kherson, Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk, and Poltava oblasts.[54] Ukrainian Eastern Air Command reported that Ukrainian air defenses also downed a Kh-59 cruise missile over Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.[55] Ukrainian officials reported that Russian Shahed drones damaged an infrastructure facility in Poltava Oblast and that two Russian S-300 missiles damaged residential buildings and power lines in Selydove, Donetsk Oblast.[56] Ukraine‘s Southern Operational Command reported that Russian forces also struck Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts with an unspecified number of ballistic missiles, likely including Iskander-M missiles, and other unspecified guided missiles later in the day on March 30.[57] Ukrainian forces reportedly intercepted one of the unspecified Russian missiles targeting Mykolaiv Oblast.[58]

Ukraine continues efforts to cope with the additional strain on the Ukrainian power grid due to damage from Russian drone and missile strikes on energy infrastructure. The Ukrainian Ministry of Energy stated on March 29 that Ukraine will conduct hourly power shutdowns in Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kirovohrad, Poltava, Sumy, and Zaporizhia oblasts.[59] Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal stated on March 30 that Ukraine will be able to better balance the energy system amid Russian strikes when Ukraine shut off heating systems at the end of the heating season.[60]

Russian Mobilization and Force Generation Efforts (Russian objective: Expand combat power without conducting general mobilization)

Russian mobilized personnel continue to suffer high casualties while fighting in Ukraine. Fifteen mobilized personnel of the 2nd Motorized Rifle Battalion of the Russian 98th Separate Infantry Regiment (1st Donetsk People’s Republic [DNR] Army Corps [AC]) published a video on March 30 claiming that only 15 soldiers of their whole company survived an assault on Semenivka, Donetsk Oblast (west of Avdiivka).[61] The soldiers claimed that the Russian military command transferred command of their unit to the 114th Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st DNR AC) after the company arrived in the Avdiivka area on March 13. The soldiers claimed that the military command of the 114th Brigade was accusing the soldiers of desertion for refusing to conduct assaults and threatening the soldiers with violence.

The Russian MoD continues to claim that it is effectively revitalizing the Russian defense industrial base (DIB). Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited unspecified Russian DIB enterprises in Altai Krai on March 30 and inspected the production of aviation and air defense missiles, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) ammunition, grenade launcher rounds, and cartridge belts.[62] A Russian DIB enterprise head claimed that the enterprise increased its output by a factor of 3.5 since 2022, and Shoigu stated that the enterprises need to work faster.[63] Shoigu also met with MoD and DIB leadership and emphasized that Russian President Vladimir Putin has allocated funds for DIB enterprises to significantly expand their production capabilities.[64]

Russian Technological Adaptations (Russian objective: Introduce technological innovations to optimize systems for use in Ukraine)

Russian forces continue to develop new and innovate existing unmanned systems for the battlefield. Russian state news outlet RIA Novosti reported that the Center for Integrated Unmanned Solutions has developed the “Joker-10” first person view (FPV) drone. Russian forces can remotely power off and turn on these drones to minimize risk when transporting these drones to positions on the battlefield or when relocating these drones to the rear.[65] RIA Novosti reported that Ukrainian electronic warfare (EW) systems struggle to detect the “Joker-10” drones when the drones are in hibernation mode — a very low power mode that reportedly significantly lowers their risk of detection — and that these drones can wait in hibernation mode for up to a week in winter and a month in summer before drone operators remotely activate them. Russian milbloggers amplified footage of a different type of Russian drone deploying a net to disable, capture, and transport an enemy drone away from Russian positions.[66] Other Russian milbloggers amplified footage of Russian forces in the Kupyansk direction operating another type of drone with an attachment that allows the drone to ram enemy drones midair.[67] A milblogger amplified footage of a Russian unit testing an unmanned tracked vehicle designed to evacuate wounded personnel and deliver ammunition under enemy fire.[68]

Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Major Ilya Yevlash stated on March 30 that Russian forces have begun using modernized FAB-250 aerial bombs equipped with the universal joint glide munition (UMPB) as glide bombs to strike frontline Ukrainian positions.[69] Yevlash noted that these glide bombs have rocket-like engines and that Russian forces can guide them to targets after Russian fighter aircraft drop the bombs.

Ukrainian Defense Industrial Efforts (Ukrainian objective: Develop its defense industrial base to become more self-sufficient in cooperation with US, European, and international partners)

ISW is not publishing coverage of Ukrainian defense industrial efforts today.

Activities in Russian-occupied areas (Russian objective: Consolidate administrative control of annexed areas; forcibly integrate Ukrainian citizens into Russian sociocultural, economic, military, and governance systems)

ISW is not publishing coverage of activities in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine today.

Russian Information Operations and Narratives

Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Deputy Chief Major General Vadym Skibitskyi warned on March 29 that Russia continues to systematically conduct information operations against Ukraine and the West.[70] Skibitskyi stated that Russia is attempting to destabilize Ukraine and reduce support for Kyiv by conducting three general types of information operation, including information operations that aim to influence Ukrainian society directly; information operations that spread misinformation in the West, specifically in Europe, to disrupt support for Ukraine and weaken Western unity; and information operations that seek to control and isolate the information space in occupied Ukraine.[71] The GUR has previously reported that Russian special services are currently conducting the “Perun” and “Maidan-3” information operations through both Russian and Western actors.[72]

Chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Bashkortostan, Mufti Ainur Birgalin, continues to deliver sermons casting the war in Ukraine as a “holy” battle against the West to generate support for Kremlin narratives about the war among Bashkorts and Muslims in Russia.[73] Russian-language outlet Idel Realii posted a review of Mufti Birgalin’s rhetoric about the war on March 30 showing that Birgalin has consistently labeled the United States and NATO as enemies of Russia and religion and Ukrainian authorities as “fascists.”[74] Idel Realii reported that Birgalin has connections with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), and Birgalin likely coordinates his messaging with the Kremlin to appeal to audiences that traditional Kremlin propaganda outlets may not reach. Birgalin has previously framed Russia's war in Ukraine as a “jihad” which is consistent with the Russian Orthodox Church’s (ROC) framing of the war as a “holy war” on March 27, 2024.[75]

Russian actors continue to pressure Armenian decision makers amid the continued deterioration of the Armenian-Russian relationship. Chairman of the Russian Foundation for the Development and Support of the Valdai Club, Andrei Bystritsky, asserted on March 30 that it is impossible for Armenia to replace its ties to Russia with relationships with Western countries due to Armenia’s geography.[76] Bystritsky stated that Armenian-Russian dialogue may face challenges in the near future before it results in “political recovery” in the long term.[77] Kremlin officials have offered increasingly critical statements about Armenia’s efforts to distance itself from Russia, and Bystritsky’s comments are likely part of a rhetorical effort to influence Armenia to return to its previous status-quo relationship with Russia.[78]

Significant activity in Belarus (Russian efforts to increase its military presence in Belarus and further integrate Belarus into Russian-favorable frameworks and Wagner Group activity in Belarus)

Nothing significant to report.

Note: ISW does not receive any classified material from any source, uses only publicly available information, and draws extensively on Russian, Ukrainian, and Western reporting and social media as well as commercially available satellite imagery and other geospatial data as the basis for these reports. References to all sources used are provided in the endnotes of each update.

2. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, March 30, 2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-march-30-2024

Key Takeaways:

Northern Gaza Strip: The IDF Air Force struck Palestinian fighters and militia infrastructure in the northern Gaza Strip.
Southern Gaza Strip: Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in western and northern Khan Younis.
West Bank: Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least three locations in the West Bank.
Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights: Lebanese Hezbollah has conducted at least 11 attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
Iraq: The Islamic Resistance in Iraq—a coalition of Iranian-backed Iraqi militias—claimed a drone attack targeting an unspecified Israeli military facility in the Golan Heights.

IRAN UPDATE, MARCH 30, 2024

Mar 30, 2024 - ISW Press

Download the PDF

Iran Update, March 30, 2024

Andie Parry, Ashka Jhaveri, Annika Ganzeveld, and Nicholas Carl

Information Cutoff: 2:00 pm ET

The Iran Update provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities abroad that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests. It also covers events and trends that affect the stability and decision-making of the Iranian regime. The Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) provides these updates regularly based on regional events. Click here to see CTP and ISW’s interactive map of Israeli ground operations. This map is updated daily alongside the static maps present in this report. Click here to subscribe to the Iran Update.

The Axis of Resistance is the unconventional alliance that Iran has cultivated in the Middle East since the Islamic Republic came to power in 1979. This transnational coalition is comprised of state, semi-state, and non-state actors that cooperate with one another to secure their collective interests. Tehran considers itself to be both part of the alliance and its leader. Iran furnishes these groups with varying levels of financial, military, and political support in exchange for some degree of influence or control over their actions. Some are traditional proxies that are highly responsive to Iranian direction while others are militias over which Iran exerts more limited influence. Members of the Axis of Resistance are united by their grand strategic objectives, which include eroding and eventually expelling American influence from the Middle East, destroying the Israeli state, or both. Pursuing these objectives and supporting the Axis of Resistance to those ends have become cornerstones of Iranian regional strategy.

We do not report in detail on war crimes because these activities are well-covered in Western media and do not directly affect the military operations we are assessing and forecasting. We utterly condemn violations of the laws of armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions and crimes against humanity even though we do not describe them in these reports.

CTP-ISW will publish abbreviated updates on March 30 and 31, 2024. Detailed coverage will resume Monday, April 1, 2024

Key Takeaways:

Northern Gaza Strip: The IDF Air Force struck Palestinian fighters and militia infrastructure in the northern Gaza Strip.
Southern Gaza Strip: Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in western and northern Khan Younis.
West Bank: Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least three locations in the West Bank.
Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights: Lebanese Hezbollah has conducted at least 11 attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.
Iraq: The Islamic Resistance in Iraq—a coalition of Iranian-backed Iraqi militias—claimed a drone attack targeting an unspecified Israeli military facility in the Golan Heights.

Gaza Strip

Axis of Resistance objectives:

Erode the will of the Israeli political establishment and public to sustain clearing operations in the Gaza Strip
Reestablish Hamas as the governing authority in the Gaza Strip

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Air Force struck Palestinian fighters and militia infrastructure in the northern Gaza Strip on March 30. The IDF 215th Artillery Brigade (162nd Division), which has been targeting Palestinian militia assets and positions in the northern Gaza Strip, directed the airstrikes, which targeting Palestinian fighters around a military building in an unspecified area of the northern Gaza Strip.[1]

Israeli forces continued operating in and around al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on March 30. The IDF 162nd Division located militia infrastructure and unspecified weapons near the hospital.[2] Israeli forces also engaged Palestinian fighters in the area.[3] The IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi said on March 29 that the al Shifa Hospital operation ”achieved its goal” but that Israeli forces would continue to operate there.[4] Halevi called the operation a ”great achievement” for leading to the capture and death of many senior Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) fighters during his visit to the al Shifa Hospital area.[5] The IDF separately announced that Israeli forces killed two senior Hamas officials in al Shifa Hospital, who were responsible for organizing attacks targeting Israel from the West Bank.[6] Both senior officials were released in a hostage-for-prisoner exchange in 2011.[7]

Palestinian militias have continued attacks targeting Israeli forces around al Shifa Hospital. Hamas targeted Israeli forces with mortars, anti-personnel explosive charges, and rocket-propelled grenades on March 29.[8] PIJ mortared an Israeli command-and-control node on March 30.[9]

The IDF Nahal Brigade continued to conduct clearing operations in the central Gaza Strip on March 30. The brigade directed an airstrike on a Palestinian militia squad transporting weapons from a military building.[10] The airstrike caused several secondary explosions, indicating that the building contained ammunition storage.[11] PIJ mortared an Israeli artillery and command-and-control position in the eastern central governorate on March 29.[12]

Israeli forces engaged Palestinian militias in southern Gaza City on March 30. Israeli forces engaged PIJ in Mughraqa, south of Israeli-built highway Route 749.[13] Palestinian media reported clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters in Mughraqa and Zahra on March 30.[14]

Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in western and northern Khan Younis on March 30. The IDF 98th Division targeted Palestinian fighters and militia infrastructure in al Qarara, northern Khan Younis.[15] The IDF Givati Brigade separately destroyed a Palestinian militia squad that attempted to target Israeli forces with an explosive device in al Amal, western Khan Younis.[16]

Several Palestinian militias targeted Israeli forces in Khan Younis on March 30. Hamas detonated an explosively formed penetrator targeting an Israeli tank in central Khan Younis.[17] The al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, which is the self-proclaimed military wing of Fatah and aligned with Hamas in the war, claimed that it ambushed Israeli forces in central Khan Younis.[18] The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), which is a leftist Palestinian militia aligned with Hamas in the war, targeted Israeli forces operating near Nasser Hospital and central Khan Younis with multiple attack waves.[19] Other Palestinian fighters mortared Israeli forces in Qarara, northern Khan Younis.[20]

US and Israeli officials may discuss a possible Israeli clearing operation into Rafah in a high-level meeting in Washington, DC, as soon as April 1, according to unspecified US officials.[21] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved plans for a clearing operation into Rafah on March 15.[22] Axios reported on March 27 that Netanyahu is expected to send Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi to Washington for the high-level meeting with US officials.[23]

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant discussed establishing a multinational Arab coalition to improve law and order in the Gaza Strip and escort humanitarian aid convoys during his recent visit to Washington, DC, according to unspecified Israeli officials.[24] Israeli officials reportedly believe that a multinational force could help establish a viable alternative to Hamas rule. The proposal includes an Arab force remaining in the Gaza Strip for a “limited transition period.” The forces would be responsible for securing the temporary US pier and distributing aid to civilians. Israeli officials have already met with prospective countries to discuss the multinational force. An unspecified Arab official from one of the countries reportedly involved in the plan said that Gallant misunderstood the Arab position and that the countries are not ready to send troops into the Gaza Strip to secure aid now but that they might consider it in a post-war scenario.[25] The Arab countries' involvement is conditional on steps toward a two-state solution following the war. Hamas published a statement on March 30 on behalf of several Palestinian factions rejecting the Israeli proposal to send Arab forces to manage the Gaza Strip.[26]

The United States has warned Israel that a “total breakdown of law and order” is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the strip.[27] The absence of a local security force contributes to this issue.[28] Hamas has already sought to reconstitute militarily and rebuild its governing authority in the northern Gaza Strip after the Israeli drawdown in the strip that began in December 2023, as CTP-ISW has previously reported.[29]

The second delivery of humanitarian aid via the maritime corridor left Cyprus for the Gaza Strip on March 30.[30] World Central Kitchen (WCK) organized the delivery, which includes “hundreds of tons of food.”

Palestinian militias did not conduct any indirect fire attacks from the Gaza Strip into Israel on March 30. The IDF Air Force conducted airstrikes targeting a launch area in the Gaza Strip following a rocket attack targeting Kissufim on March 29.[31] PIJ published footage of its fighters' firing rockets from the northern Gaza Strip targeting Sderot after the group claimed a rocket attack on March 25.[32] Palestinian militias have launched most of their indirect fire attacks into Israel from the northern and central Gaza Strip since January 2024.[33]

West Bank

Axis of Resistance objectives:

Establish the West Bank as a viable front against Israel

Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least three locations in the West Bank since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on March 29.[34] The Popular Resistance Committees reported that its fighters fired small arms targeting Homesh, north of Nablus.[35]

This map is not an exhaustive depiction of clashes and demonstrations in the West Bank.

Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights

Axis of Resistance objectives:

Deter Israel from conducting a ground operation into Lebanon
Prepare for an expanded and protracted conflict with Israel in the near term
Expel the United States from Syria

Lebanese Hezbollah has conducted at least 11 attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on March 29.[36]

Recorded reports of attacks; CTP-ISW cannot independently verify impact.

Iran and Axis of Resistance

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq—a coalition of Iranian-backed Iraqi militias—claimed a drone attack targeting an unspecified Israeli military facility in the Golan Heights on March 29.[37] Israeli officials have not commented on the attack at the time of this writing. CTP-ISW cannot verify this claim.

3. Baltimore bridge collapse: Powerful crane linked to CIA secret Cold War mission arrives to clean up debris

Excerpts:

The crane originally was built as the Sun 800 in 1972 to help construct the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a deep-sea vessel used by the CIA in a secret mission called "Project AZORIAN" to recover a Soviet nuclear submarine that sank in the Pacific Ocean during the Cold War, according to the Engineering News-Record.

It later had its capacity increased from 800 to 1,000 tons and was bought by New Jersey-based Donjon Marine Co. Inc. in 1993, which confirmed the details of the report to Fox News Digital on Friday.

Baltimore bridge collapse: Powerful crane linked to CIA secret Cold War mission arrives to clean up debris

Chesapeake 1000 floating crane has arrived at Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse site

By Greg Norman Fox News

Published March 29, 2024 1:45pm EDT

foxnews.com · by Greg Norman Fox News

A powerful floating crane that played a role in what the CIA says was one of the "greatest intelligence coups of the Cold War" has arrived at the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse site in Baltimore to start removing debris.

The Chesapeake 1000, which Unified Command tells Fox News Digital can "carry up to 1,000 tons," arrived late last night at the wreckage site in the Patapsco River, where the remains of four construction workers are still missing following Tuesday’s collapse.

The crane originally was built as the Sun 800 in 1972 to help construct the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a deep-sea vessel used by the CIA in a secret mission called "Project AZORIAN" to recover a Soviet nuclear submarine that sank in the Pacific Ocean during the Cold War, according to the Engineering News-Record.

It later had its capacity increased from 800 to 1,000 tons and was bought by New Jersey-based Donjon Marine Co. Inc. in 1993, which confirmed the details of the report to Fox News Digital on Friday.

US ARMY VETERAN SPECULATES ON WHAT WENT WRONG BEFORE BALTIMORE BRIDGE COLLAPSE

The Chesapeake 1000 floating crane in Baltimore, Maryland, on Friday, March 29. (Griff Jenkins/Fox News)

Donjon Marine Co. Inc. says on its website that the floating crane barge is nearly 200 feet long and has a boom of 231 feet. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore described it Thursday as the "the largest crane in the Eastern seaboard."

The cargo ship Dali struck a pillar of the bridge on Tuesday, causing it to collapse and killing six.

On Thursday, the Key Bridge Response 2024 Unified Command – which is made up of the Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland State Police and other agencies – said "on-scene crews continue to assess and monitor for spilled oils and hazardous substances to prevent further discharge or release into the marine environment."

"First responders have observed a sheen around the vessel. There are 56 total containers loaded on the vessel that contained hazardous materials," it added in a statement. "Fourteen were impacted. The 14 that were impacted were assessed by an industrial hygienist for potential hazards."

FUNDING BILL TO REPLACE BALTIMORE KEY BRIDGE COULD TAKE SHAPE IN ‘MATTER OF WEEKS,’ TOP HOUSE REPUBLICAN SAYS

In this image taken from video released by the National Transportation and Safety Board, the cargo ship Dali is stuck under part of the structure of the Francis Scott Key Bridge after the ship hit the bridge, on Tuesday, March 26, 2024. (NTSB/AP)

The CIA says Project AZORIAN came to be after K-129, a "Soviet Golf II-class submarine carrying three SS-N-4 nuclear-armed ballistic missiles," sank in 1968 about 1,800 miles northwest of Hawaii.

The ship used in that mission, the Hughes Glomar Explorer, was "ostensibly a commercial deep-sea mining vessel ostensibly built and owned by billionaire Howard Hughes, who provided the plausible cover story that his ship was conducting marine research at extreme ocean depths and mining manganese nodules lying on the sea bottom," according to the CIA.

The Explorer eventually pulled up a part of the submarine in 1974 that included the bodies of six Soviets, but another part broke off about halfway to the surface, the CIA says. A second mission to recover that lost portion was scuttled after details of the program were exposed by the media a year later.

The Glomar Explorer ship is seen anchored in the U.S. Navy's National Defense Reserve Fleet in Suisan Bay, California in this U.S. Navy handout file photo taken on May 15, 1977. The ship was built by the CIA for a secret Cold War mission in 1974 to raise a sunken Soviet sub. Christened the Hughes Glomar Explorer, after billionaire Howard Hughes was brought in on the CIA's deception, the 619-foot vessel eventually became part of the fleet of ships used by Swiss company Transocean to drill for oil. (Reuters/US Navy/Archives Branch, Naval History and Heritage Command, Washington)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Although Project AZORIAN failed to meet its full intelligence objectives, CIA considered the operation to be one of the greatest intelligence coups of the Cold War," it said.

foxnews.com · by Greg Norman Fox News

4. Philippines boosts maritime security as China tension rises

Is this the tinderbox for future conflict? Is this where it will start? Or will success here deter future conflict? Will this be the test of our 5 Mutual Defense Treaties in the Asia-Pacific region?

Philippines boosts maritime security as China tension rises

By Reuters

March 31, 20247:21 AM EDTUpdated 2 hours ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philippines-marcos-boosts-maritime-security-china-tension-rises-2024-03-31/

Item 1 of 3 Members of the Philippine Coast Guard stand alert as a Chinese Coast Guard vessel blocks their way to a resupply mission at Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea, March 5, 2024. REUTERS/Adrian Portugal/File Photo

[1/3]Members of the Philippine Coast Guard stand alert as a Chinese Coast Guard vessel blocks their way to a resupply mission at Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea, March 5, 2024. REUTERS/Adrian Portugal/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

MANILA, March 31 (Reuters) - Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has ordered his government to strengthen its coordination on maritime security to confront "a range of serious challenges" to territorial integrity and peace, as a dispute with China escalates.

The order, signed on Monday and made public on Sunday, does not mention China but follows a series of bilateral maritime confrontations and mutual accusations over a disputed area of the South China Sea.

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to a Reuters request for comment on Sunday.

Beijing claims almost all of the South China Sea, a conduit for more than $3 trillion of annual ship-borne commerce. China's claims overlap those of the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 said China's claims had no legal basis.

The latest flare-up occurred last weekend, when China used water cannon to disrupt a Philippine resupply mission to the Second Thomas Shoal for soldiers guarding a warship intentionally grounded on a reef 25 years ago.

"Despite efforts to promote stability and security in our maritime domain, the Philippines continues to confront a range of serious challenges that threaten territorial integrity, but also the peaceful existence of Filipinos," Marcos said in the order.

The president vowed on Thursday to implement countermeasures against "illegal, coercive, aggressive and dangerous attacks" by China's coastguard.

His order expands and reorganises the government's maritime council, adding the national security adviser, solicitor general, National Intelligence Coordinating Agency chief and the South China Sea task force.

The order appears to expand the role of the military by naming the Armed Forces of the Philippines, not just the navy, among the agencies supporting the council.

The renamed National Maritime Council will be the central body to formulate strategies to ensure a "unified, coordinated and effective" framework for the Philippines' maritime security and domain awareness.

Marcos increased the number of agencies supporting the council to 13 from nine, including the space agency and the University of the Philippines' Institute for Maritime Affairs and the Law of the Sea.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Karen Lema in Manila, additional reporting by David Kirton in Shenzhen; Editing by William Mallard and Nick Macfie

5. China issues travel advisory to citizens visiting the US, warning of ‘unwarranted interrogations and harassment’

Excerpts:

Since November, at least eight Chinese students with valid documents have been searched, interrogated or sent back just from Washington Dulles International Airport alone, according to a tally by Chinese media.

In January, China Science Daily, a newspaper affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, reported that a biological sciences PhD candidate was deported by officials at Dulles airport in December as she was trying to return to the US to continue her studies.

China issues travel advisory to citizens visiting the US, warning of ‘unwarranted interrogations and harassment’

Beijing urges citizens to prepare for ‘unexpected situations’ after Chinese students and workers are questioned and deported from American airports
Chinese foreign ministry says it has lodged formal protest with Washington over the situation
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3257317/china-issues-travel-advisory-citizens-visiting-us-warning-unwarranted-interrogations-and-harassment

Phoebe Zhang

+ FOLLOWPublished: 6:00pm, 30 Mar 2024

China issued a travel advisory for citizens visiting the United States, asking them to take safety precautions and to be prepared for “various unexpected situations”, such as being searched.

Several Chinese students and company employees have recently been subjected to “unwarranted interrogations and harassment” by US airport law enforcement officers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on its WeChat account on Friday.

Their phones, computers and other luggage items were searched piece by piece, and several people were banned from entering the country, it said.

Americans studying in China are safe despite US travel advisory, scholars say

29 Mar 2024

“The ministry and the Chinese embassy and consulates in the US have lodged a solemn representation to the US, and we remind those who plan to travel to the US to be aware of these situations,” it said, advising Chinese nationals in need of help to contact their embassy or consulate.

Since November, at least eight Chinese students with valid documents have been searched, interrogated or sent back just from Washington Dulles International Airport alone, according to a tally by Chinese media.

In January, China Science Daily, a newspaper affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, reported that a biological sciences PhD candidate was deported by officials at Dulles airport in December as she was trying to return to the US to continue her studies.

‘Stop harassing’ Chinese students at the border for no reason, China tells US

19 Feb 2024

The report said the student was subjected to a body search and spent eight hours in an interrogation room followed by 12 hours in solitary confinement.

When she returned to China, she learned of 10 other Chinese students who had similar experiences. The students were mainly interrogated on their undergraduate scholarships from the China Scholarship Council and their involvement in confidential research, the newspaper said.

On March 8, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said the US has disrupted personnel exchanges between the two countries, violating the consensus reached by the heads of states. She called the incidents “political and discriminatory law enforcement” and said they were caused by the “cold war mentality” of some people in the US.

Last month, ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said US authorities were “weaponising” academic research, overextending the concept of national security, persecuting Chinese students, and “poisoning” the atmosphere of bilateral people-to-people exchanges.

Politics, red tape and job worries could slow China’s foreign student rebound

20 Mar 2024

In recent months, the two countries have pledged to encourage educational and other exchanges. In November, while on a visit to the US, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China would invite 50,000 young Americans to study in the next five years.

This week, Xi met representatives from the US business community, academia and policy circles. He noted that the “China-US relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world” and expressed hope that people from all sectors in both countries could take part in more visits and exchanges.

Following that meeting, Chinese Minister of Education Huai Jinpeng met Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of investment management company Blackstone Group, and his delegation in Beijing on Thursday. Huai stressed that the ministry would encourage top universities in both China and the US to increase student exchanges and increase high-level cooperation.

CONVERSATIONS (129)

+ FOLLOW

Phoebe Zhang

Phoebe Zhang is a society reporter with the Post. She has a master's degree in journalism.

6. U.S. and Israel’s ‘Unprecedented’ Intelligence Sharing Draws Criticism

It would be a huge mistake to cut off intelligence sharing with Israel. We also benefit from Israel sharing intelligence with us. Of course no country shares all its intelligence even with its closest allies.

U.S. and Israel’s ‘Unprecedented’ Intelligence Sharing Draws Criticism

As deaths mount in Gaza, some question whether American-provided information is adding to the humanitarian crisis

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-and-israels-unprecedented-intelligence-sharing-draws-criticism-a85979b4?mod=hp_lead_pos1

By Warren P. Strobel

and Nancy A. Youssef

Updated March 31, 2024 12:04 am ET

Israel says destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza is unavoidable as it attacks Hamas. PHOTO: MOHAMMED ABED/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

WASHINGTON—A secret memorandum that expanded intelligence sharing with Israel after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack has led to growing concerns in Washington about whether the information is contributing to civilian deaths, according to people familiar with the issue.

Among the worries is that there is little independent oversight to confirm that U.S.-supplied intelligence isn’t used in strikes that unnecessarily kill civilians or damage infrastructure, the people said.

The secret U.S.-Israeli intelligence-sharing agreement has received less public scrutiny than U.S. weapons sales to Israel. But it is prompting increasing questions from Democratic lawmakers and human-rights groups, even as alarm mounts within the Biden administration over how Israel is conducting its military campaign in Gaza following Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, which killed about 1,200 Israelis.

The concerns about intelligence sharing in some ways mirror those over the provision of American weapons as the death toll mounts in Gaza, and President Biden has left open the possibility of withholding some arms from its closest ally in the Middle East. That possibility hasn’t been raised with intelligence, but its potential for contributing to civilian casualties is being discussed in the administration and on Capitol Hill.

How Spice Kits Upgrade ‘Dumb’ Bombs Into Precision-Guided Munitions

AT&T Says Data From 73 Million Accounts Were Leaked to Dark Web

The data surfaced online about two weeks ago and involve customer information from 2019 or earlier; no impact on operations, company says

https://www.wsj.com/business/telecom/at-t-says-data-from-73-million-accounts-were-leaked-to-dark-web-bad6d642?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos1

By Ginger Adams Otis

and Drew FitzGerald

March 30, 2024 1:36 pm ET

AT&T customers affected by a data breach have been contacted by the company. PHOTO: JEENAH MOON/BLOOMBERG NEWS

AT&T T 0.28%increase; green up pointing triangle said personal information from about 7.6 million account holders and more than 65 million former customers was leaked onto the dark web in a data breach.The data set appeared on the dark web about two weeks ago but appears to have come from 2019 or earlier, the company said Saturday. It includes personal information such as names and Social Security numbers. The source of the security breach is not yet known, AT&T said.

AT&T said its internal investigation hasn’t turned up evidence “of unauthorized access to its systems resulting in exfiltration of the data set,” with the caveat that the probe is in its early stages. The company said its investigation is supported by internal and external cybersecurity experts.

Affected customers have been contacted by the telecommunications giant, which will offer credit monitoring services. The data breach hasn’t had a material impact on operations, the company said.

AT&T is the latest big telecom company to disclose the theft of its customers’ personal details.

T-Mobile in 2022 agreed to pay $350 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over the leak of records on more than 50 million customers. The cellphone carrier in 2023 revealed another major breach of “basic customer information” on about 37 million subscribers. Last month AT&T suffered a network failure that left people around the country without cellphone service for hours, frustrating customers and renewing concerns about the reliability of vital network infrastructure.

The outage resulted from “an incorrect process used as we were expanding our network,” an AT&T spokesman said at the time. The company apologized for the incident.

Write to Ginger Adams Otis at Ginger.AdamsOtis@wsj.com and Drew FitzGerald at andrew.fitzgerald@wsj.com

8. Henry Huiyao Wang and Graham Allison in Conversation on Escaping Thucydides’ Trap

A long read. This conversation took place in China.

Henry Huiyao Wang and Graham Allison in Conversation on Escaping Thucydides’ Trap

And transcript of Live Q&A between "Founding Dean" of Harvard Kennedy School and Chinese media

https://ccgupdate.substack.com/p/henry-huiyao-wang-and-graham-allison?utm=

HAOBO DENG, YUXUAN JIA, AND WENDY WU

MAR 31, 2024

Hi, this is Yuxuan Jia in Beijing. On Friday, March 22, 2024, the Center for China & Globalization (CCG) held a book launch event to release the English edition of the book "Escaping Thucydides’ Trap: Dialogue with Graham Allison on China-US Relations", published by Palgrave Macmillan, as well as its Chinese edition, published by CITIC Press Group. The book launch was followed by an engaging discussion between Henry Huiyao Wang, editor of the book & President of CCG, and Prof. Graham Allison, Founding Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense. This was their third collaboration within the CCG's Global Dialogue series, with the previous sessions held in April 2021 and March 2022.

Five days after the CCG event, Prof. Allison was welcomed by President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People. During this meeting, Xi Jinping elaborated on the meaning of the phrase “You are in me, and I am in you,” a concept also acknowledged by Professor Allison in today's transcript. According to Xinhua, Allison told Xi that "The 'Thucydides's Trap' is not inevitable."

The CCG Update today presents a transcript of the discussions between Dr. Wang and Prof. Allison at the event, as the latest episode of CCG's Global Dialogue series, as well as the Q&A session between Prof. Allison and Chinese media.

Please note that the transcript has not been reviewed by Prof. Allison or his staff and may contain errors.

"Escaping Thucydides’ Trap: Dialogue with Graham Allison on China-US Relations", launched at the Mar. 22 event at CCG, presents a comprehensive collection of Allison’s views and writings on US-China relations from 2017 to 2022, covering a range of topics including the balance of power between the two sides, where the relationship is headed, and lessons from history on how conflict can be avoided. The book also includes an introduction and afterword by Dr. Henry Huiyao Wang, editor of this volume.

The event garnered extensive coverage from multiple media outlets, including Beijing Daily, China News Service, Pheonix TV, Bejing News, China Review News Agency, and China's Diplomacy in the New Era (dplomacy.org.cn). It was also promoted through the official WeChat blog of the Chinese Embassy in the U.S.

To ensure wide accessibility, CCG broadcasted the event live across various Chinese online platforms such as WeChat, Weibo, Douyin, Kuaishou, Baidu, and Bilibili. The video recordings of the event, both in English and Chinese, are available on YouTube and CCG's official WeChat blog.

Conversation between Henry Huiyao Wang & Graham Allison

Henry Huiyao Wang

Good afternoon and good day! We're going to start our CCG Global Dialogue. Since 2021, we actually have made almost 100 dialogues with different global opinion leaders and great global thinkers, and Graham Allison has been twice on our CCG Global Dialogue. So we're pleased again today to welcome you to CCG and have another occasion to have a global dialogue with Prof. Graham Allison on the occasion of this new book, Escaping Thucydides’s Trap: Dialogue with Graham Allison on China-US Relations. So it's really fascinating.

For Graham, we probably don't need any more introduction for the present audience. But I think for the online audience, I want to introduce him again. Prof. Graham Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard Kennedy School. He's the "Founding Dean" of Harvard Kennedy School, which was visionary for doing that. He is the former director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Also, Prof. Graham Allison has served in a key position in the government of the U.S., including the Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration and also a special advisor to the Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. So he has also continued advising the government. Of course, Prof. Graham Allison is a big fan of China and he has traveled many times to China. He has been to CCG and I have been able to work and talk with Prof. Graham Allison for the last decade and more. Just recently, we met almost every month. We met in Davos, at the Munich Security Conference, now March at CCG.

So today we're going to talk about this book. Prof. Allison's famous work, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? was published in 2017. His view has generated enormous global attention and global debate, but also global awareness of how dangerous it could be if we did not follow the right path of avoiding this conflict. So we have published this book largely based on our dialogues, but also many thoughts that Graham has published recently in the interviews and articles. So the book is actually, to introduce how we can find ways to escape the trap. Also, we published that in both Chinese and English. Today is the occasion that we have published it for both editions, with thanks to Palgrave Macmillan and CITIC Press for collaborating on this great book.

So Graham, now we will come to you. In your presentation just now, you talked about competition and cooperation, and you gave an assignment for all of us to do. We hope we will do that. We are now living in a very different world. Of course, we are living in a nuclear age. I remember last time when we talked with each other, you mentioned that, this is very dangerous if we're not careful enough to go into the hot war, Boston will be gone, Beijing will be gone, and Washington will be gone. You are famous for your thesis on the Cuba Crisis, a nuclear crisis at that time. We're still in the nuclear age and we're currently having two wars in the world. So it's more significant now to escape the Thucydides's Trap. Given the contemporary conditions - and of course, a lot of people also say that maybe talk of Thucydides's trap is going to take us into the self-fulfilling prophecy - but seriously, how can we make people more aware of this? What are the real risks that are facing us, particularly with this Ukrainian War and Gaza war going on? How do you see the world today? Are we on the brink of a WWIII now? Thucydides’s trap is really getting close now, so how can we assess the global situation and avoid Thucydides’s trap? So Graham, please.

Graham Allison

Again, thank you, Henry and CCG for such a good job in producing the book. I was surprised when reading through it how coherent you have made the answers to the questions. I appreciate that.

I know many Chinese very well, but I don't know in a broad sweep, how many Chinese have much appreciation of history. In the U.S., it's often said we live in the United States of Amnesia. People think if something didn't happen in my lifetime, it couldn't happen. So if you say, well, you know, there could be a war. No, no, wars are obsolete. How about a real war in Europe? Most Europeans couldn't believe it until all of a sudden, they found Putin invading Ukraine. And now, as you saw at Munich, there's this kind of wake-up going across Europe as people think, oh my God, there really are tanks and planes and missiles; they're exploding and killing people and destroying. So again, the idea of a great power war seems...I mean, when I talk to students at Harvard: oh, that couldn't happen; it hasn't happened in my lifetime, as if that was the dispositive. Or it hasn't happened even in my parents' lifetime. So that means it couldn't happen? No, absolutely no. Or how about nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear weapons? That must be obsolete or that's forbidden or it is taboo? Tabbos are never broken? Well, I would say it's very hard to get people to think seriously about the clearly real, undeniable risks in the international security environment.

So was it a real serious threat when Putin began talking about conducting tactical nuclear weapon strikes on Ukraine back in October, November 2022 after the invasion? But then, once installed, the American intelligence community concluded the chance was about fifty-fifty. So there's about a 50% chance that Putin would have conducted nuclear strikes. The Chinese intelligence community, I don't know what they could have put it. But in any case, they thought about this in a collaborative action between both the U.S. and China. Xi Jinping then issued a public warning saying, "We oppose any threat or use of nuclear weapons". And before he made such a public statement - this was when Chancellor Scholz was here in November of 2022. He obviously called Putin, with whom he has a very close relationship, and said, I've thought about this; I think this is not a good idea, not a good idea for China. And my wishlist, working with the US government on the side, the thing I wished for most was that China would suggest to Putin why this was a bad idea. So that's another interesting example of how certainly thoughtful, serious leaders are taking seriously the possibility that one thing could lead to the other, that would lead to a war, even a great power war.

A second example is the fact that Biden and Xi met in San Francisco in the midst of a campaign in which there's obviously no political advantage to being friendly to China. Indeed, there's every political advantage for who can best China more dramatically. But Biden took out a long day to spend with Xi Jinping in which they would talk privately about what they really thought mattered. And that included war, Taiwan, AI, climate, and the overall relationship. We don't know even all the topics. We certainly don't know what they said to each other. Again, I regard that as great. If you're gonna have serious relations between the countries, you have to have private, candid, secure conversations between them, starting with the leaders.

And if I now watch and see what happened since that meeting, you can infer a little bit about the conversation. So we've been through a very rocky period over Taiwan with the elections and the election of a new president who has many inclinations towards trying to declare a more independent Taiwan. But if I watch the behavior of both the Chinese government and the American government, it's been very restrained, almost as if it has been choreographed a little bit. Well, I usually try to read the tea leaves and see what to interpret. I interpret from that again that we had two leaders, both serious about the problem work, their way through.

So I would say I worry a lot about the ways in which misunderstandings, misperceptions, miscalculations, and some third party's provocation could end up dragging people to a place they don't wanna go. And that's why again, I think it's been so important that the Biden-Xi conversations have continued and then what's followed from that was similar conversations among trusted agents on both sides, including now these working groups. So I'm feeling somewhat more optimistic about the situation currently. Sorry, that's a long answer.

Henry Huiyao Wang

No, that's great. You have a very good vision and answer to the current crisis we're facing, but also how important China, the U.S., and the top leaders talk to each other and get on the same wavelength in terms of how to cooperate.

One thing I'd like to follow a bit further. You actually mentioned in that list that you ask everyone to think about - and I think it's a great list - incentives to cooperate. I think that, for example, we're living in a really intertwined world as President Xi said, you are in us and we are in you - we cannot separate. Now the current global situation is that there are more common objectives or common interests to bind all the parties to talk to each other.

You remember when we were at the Munich Security Conference three times in a row, we talked about climate change. So climate change is probably the threat No.1 facing mankind. And then we have the pandemic we just finished - we haven't cooperated and that has caused big casualties for all of us. And of course, we're having the digital world now. We now have AI and all those things.

So how do you think can we get better cooperation? Maybe we should have a new international mechanism, a multilateral system? Or maybe now we're talking about a multi-polar world, but yet there's no multi-polar system to support that? So in order to create more incentives to cooperate, what should we do more or what can we work on toward cooperation particularly between the U.S., China, and the EU as the three largest economies in the world? Like we just said in Munich last month, the three largest economies, and the three largest in political influence, should take some examples to work together so that we don't talk about the differences but about similarities and the common challenges. What do you think?

Graham Allison

Yeah, I agree. I think the reasons for working through this exercise are both what are the reasons why I'm gonna be a fierce competitor, but then also the list on the backside, what are the reasons why I'm gonna be a serious cooperator or serious partner is to start with our interests. When I start writing down my hierarchy of interests, the core interest of each state or the leader of each state is to ensure the survival of their state. So if my survival depends on your survival - I mean, it's really I am in you and you are in me.

I've used the analogy in America, there's what we call inseparable, conjoined Siamese twins. Imagine two human beings, which just happen in nature from time to time, are born. And Henry and I have the same GI system, two heads, two brains, but literally joined inseparably. So if that's true, however frustrating my behavior is, however dangerous my behavior is, however deserving I am to be strangled, when you think about it, you think, "By strangling him, I may have a minute of satisfaction, but then I will have committed suicide." That's a pretty powerful reason not to do and find some way to cooperate.

So I would say I worked down the interest. First, no great war, especially no nuclear war because at the end of that, everything is destroyed. And at the climate - it's as what you said - if either of us can make the climate inhabitable for both of us, you and I have to find some way to cooperate and constrain them. And it's not only the two. We just happen to be the two most important economies and the two most important societies. Obviously, we have to take into account some of the others.

I'll go down the list. How about the financial system? The financial system today is so entangled that in 2008 when Wall Street created a financial crisis that produced a great recession in the U.S., the world was teetering on the edge of a Great Depression. And why was that avoided? Because cooperation between the U.S. and China had a joint stimulus, each a huge stimulus. And Hank Paulson, who was the Secretary of Treasury at that time, and who was the principal actor on the American side, has said frequently that he thought the Chinese action was at least as important as the American stimulus. So again, a Great Depression would not be the end of the world. It's not as bad as a nuclear war. But the Great Depression is pretty terrible. If you remember the Great Depression of the 1930s, that provided the environment in which emerged Nazis, fascists, and the forces that ended up leading to WWII. So there's one.

Now, pandemic, as you said, if a virus like COVID emerges somewhere and it will again for sure, the impact on all the societies is real. The interest therefore is in having early identification in the COVID story. The Chinese scientists published a genome sequence within six days or something. That was necessary for the story of the creation of vaccines. Again, that was not sufficient cooperation in my view.

I think if we worked down that list, we have a lot of reasons for thinking that countries can cooperate. But I think that in the world in which things are "either-or" or black and white, that doesn't quite work, which is why I think it's so important that we realize the complexity of the situation and find their ways to some conceptualization that doesn't deny that it's gonna be fiercely rivalry-some on one hand and deeply cooperative on the other.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Thank you, Graham, excellent. You have these vivid examples. Particularly, you mentioned Hank Paulson when he was the Secretary of the Treasury. When we had this toll in the financial crisis, we actually worked together. I mean, that's how the G20 got established. China had a 4 trillion stimulus package even if China had a bit of a problem. Even also during the early Asian financial crisis, China didn't devalue the RMB. So absolutely, we're in the same boat. 190 countries, like President Xi said, we're in the same boat. We think and float together, so we have to work with each other. Now given the time, I have a last question before we open to the journalist friends. I received your article - you sent it to me when it was published on Foreign Affairs - with Henry Kissinger, his last piece, a great article co-authored with you. Actually, that was published before the San Francisco President Xi and President Biden summit. You and Kissinger were very visionary in proposing this AI cooperation. AI can be a double-edged sword.

So, what's your advice now for the future? I mean, that has already been brought to the attention of both governments to talk about. Maybe the world should be paying more attention? Also, I really appreciate your mentioning Kissinger in your presentation. Dr. Henry Kissinger has passed away. Where's the new Kissinger? We look to you and others like Hank Paulson and maybe others to really steer through the Sino-US relations with more constructive national voices. We are really appreciative that you and Kissinger made this AI awareness of the governments between China and the U.S. particularly. We hope that we can continue to identify the risks and propose all those constructive proposals in the future. So maybe your last answer for the discussion.

Graham Allison

Thank you. As I mentioned, I first became a student of Henry Kissinger's way before most of the people here were born. I enrolled in his class when I was a graduate student at Harvard in 1965. The joke was, for Henry's hundredth birthday, there were several parties. People would occasionally give toasts and so forth. And he was introduced as the longest-suffering continuing education professor at Harvard while I was the slowest-continuing education learner. And I said that I was proud of that. I continued learning from him all those years. And I never had any encounter with him that I didn't learn a lot. Then we became colleagues and friends and even co-authors, as you said.

He had become obsessed by AI as a new phenomenon that he thought it would be as challenging for society as nuclear weapons had been when he was a young person working on these topics. And he knew that they were very different. When he became interested in this, he was about 95 years old. When he told me he was gonna do this, I said to him, Henry, don't think about this; you have enough things to think about; this is a whole new arena. He said, no, I'm thinking about it. Fortunately, Eric Schmidt, the guy who had been the chief executive of Google and who had been interested in AI, agreed to become like a tutor for both Henry and me. So we learned a lot, but still about a millimeter deep, not very deep. Nonetheless, I think he rightly identified the possibilities of applications of AI. They could have seriously catastrophic consequences for not only each society but for mankind.

So how do you put your head around that? Well, the article struggles with that and suggests that on the one hand, it's tempting to say this is impossible. Never has a technology advanced at such a rate as AI is currently advancing. I had lunch today with one of the AI leaders here in China, trying to understand how he sees what's happening. Certainly, if you look at the American story, companies are doing everything they can to jump ahead of the other. So this is different from nuclear. But nonetheless, if you go back 80 years when nuclear weapons were first introduced, the question of what was gonna happen and how, whether they could be controlled, and whether there was gonna be nuclear Armageddon...all those were the similar questions.

And lo and behold, as a result of strategic imagination, statecraft, intuitiveness, over the last 78 years, we've not seen a single nuclear weapon used in war. It's an amazing accomplishment. The job is not fixed, not completed, but an amazing working progress. And there's not been a great power war - again, historically unprecedented. So I think trying to reflect on lessons learned in that story both for inspiration and for insights is what the article challenges us to do. Now, fortunately, Xi Jinping has been interested in AI already for a long time. He and Henry (Kissinger) had talked about this a couple of times earlier. So they had a very serious conversation about it in the visit in August. And that informed this piece that we wrote and helped nudge the meeting that occurred.

And it seems to me that in that meeting and the conversations, they were clearly two serious leaders who take the challenge seriously. They agreed then to encourage early conversations both between some of their trusted agents because obviously in China, the Chinese government is trying to make sure that in the development of AI, there're no rogue actors applying this in a way that could have catastrophic consequences for China. And the U.S. government is trying to do the same thing. So obviously we have common interests in this, talking about what you're doing, what am I doing and what works and what doesn't work.

In the nuclear arena, even though the U.S. and the Soviet Union, at the time when they were superpowers and they were deadly adversaries, they could agree that it would be better if there were not more nuclear weapon states. So basically, the non-proliferation regime limited the number of new nuclear weapon states to prevent a world nuclear anarchy. Now today, they are two AI superpowers, but they slowed the development of AI or the proliferation of AI, especially large language models that could have the most dangerous applications - maybe, maybe. That would be difficult but not impossible. So it seems to be that this is a topic that needs to be pushed ahead in the conversations. And there will be, as there already are, some Track-II conversations, there'll be academics working on it in both China and (the U.S.)

I was at Tsinghua this morning. was there, has been part of this conversation. So I would suspect that's the path ahead. And if the nuclear analogy is helpful in the early conversations between the parties, they were very exploratory. Though they didn't lead to any particular conclusions, they helped each other see how each was seen and understand the vocabulary, to see what ideas they had. So I would say is that - at least, I would hope - that's what I would see going forward.

Henry Huiyao Wang

Okay, great. I think this is really visionary you and Henry Kisser proposed this AI concept. Also I'm glad that President Xi and President Biden talked about that. President Xi also talked to Henry Kissinger, as you mentioned. So this is really getting attention from the world. And if the U.S. and China can collaborate on that to prevent the side effects, we will probably be in a better and safer world. So thank you. We hope that you will carry on this Kissinger spirit and be a great supporter, promoter, and of course, great contributor to the America-China relations.

So I think we've probably concluded the dialogue part, which is a dialogue about our new book, Escaping Thucycides' Trap. Prof. Graham Allison joined this CCG book launching event. I'm Henry Wang, founder of Center for China and Globalization and thank all of you for coming. And before I leave - I know you talked about Henry Kissinger's birthday - you have a birthday tomorrow, as I heard. We have a panda gift for you. So we'll give it to show our appreciation for your coming to CCG.

Graham Allison

We're looking forward to the pandas returning.

Henry Huiyao Wang

That's right. Yes.

Live Q&A between Allison and Chinese Media

Yuyuantan Tian玉渊潭天, China Media Group (CMG)

Hello, Dr. Graham. I'm a reporter from China Media Group. I noticed that recently the U.S. House of Representatives passed the TikTok Divestiture Bill and the US government also continued to restrict the Chinese technology industry, which also influenced the new energy vehicles.

So what do you think of the competition between the Chinese and the U.S. government? The next question is, what do you think can be done to avoid this Thucydides' Trap? Thank you.

Graham Allison

In the technology arena, we should expect the rivalry to become more intense. One sees that in part in the attempt by the US to constrain the exports of the most advanced semiconductors, which is already having some impact on the development of AI here in China. That's because, in many arenas, the U.S. and China will be fierce rivals, each attempting to be ahead of the other as far as it can be. So I would say that's the rivalry part that's almost inevitable.

In the EV space or in the green technologies, it seems we've got more interest in it because, basically, thanks to its own industrial policy and the innovation and operations of its own companies, China now essentially owns everything green and clean. Well, I wrote a piece actually - I don't think it's in this book, but it was after - called "The America's Green Future will be Red" (Will America’s green future be Red?). If you look at every green technology, China produces 70% or 80% of the inputs to it. For example, solar batteries. Last year, China installed more solar panels in China than the U.S. installed in the U.S. in the whole 25 years in which the U.S. has been installing solar panels. Absolutely amazing. Actually, what China did this year in renewable technologies was such a great leap forward that it's quite likely that, as opposed to the target, which had been to peak the greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, that goal might be met by 2025, maybe even sooner, maybe even this year, conceivable.

So that capability is great for the world. I mean, basically, Chinese solar panels are 70% cheaper than anybody else's. And therefore, the more they're used globally, the more this will reproduce energy without greenhouse gases, the better that is for the biosphere. That's on the one hand.

On the other hand, if you're a company, let's say, for example, an auto company in the U.S. or in Germany, and BYD wants to sell its EVs in the U.S. or Europe, well, excuse me, you can buy a BYD entry-level car, at least single, for less than $10,000 here in China. And what's the cheapest EV in the US? It costs about $27,000 or $28,000. So China mass produces or scale produces manufactured products as an ecosystem that's basically dominant. But the impact of that on other nation's economies, companies, and unions will lead to a lot of pushback.

So I would say that's another arena where there's these balance and tradeoffs. So I'm expecting a future in which there will be very fierce competition and constraints, debates and discussion will probably, even in the same way that - there's a good book that has been published this year called "Chip War" - there'll be another book called "EV War", "Green War", "Tech War". There'll be competition and rivalry, and that will have to be balanced. You would like to say, well, let's just get over it. We're not gonna get over it, it's gonna be a struggle. But you need to be balanced by the recognition that at the same time we're rivals, we're also interdependent partners. Now I would say that's my bet about the likely future.

Phoenix TV

Thank you, Prof. Allison. My name is Emily from Phoenix TV. We noticed the U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns has recently described the relationship between China and the US as a battle of ideas. But we also know the US scholar Mearsheimer has long warned these kinds of ideological claims are a great illusion of the U.S.

So I'm just wondering, what do you think? What eventually are the two countries competing about? The second question is, what do you think is gonna happen if former President Donald Trump takes office again?

Graham Allison

Another easy question. So two very different questions, but the battle of ideas or the ideological conflict or the systems' conflict is complicated, and easily gets too frequently oversimplified. President Biden describes it as "the battle between democracy and autocracy". I don't think that quite captures the (essence), but I think there is ultimately a battle of ideas about how to organize and govern a society.

So Xi Jinping believes that governing a complex society like China requires a party-led - I would put in my terms - autocracy, or a more authoritative system in which the Party has basically the leadership vanguard and plays a critical role in leading the society in order to create sufficient order, in order to have a successful society. And that story is playing out. And if you look at the story of China's spectacular growth over the past generation or two, it's been pretty impressive. Nobody can deny it.

The American story is a different story. So whereas Chinese put order as this Xi Jinping leadership, and Chinese tradition puts order as kind of a simple political idea, the American society's been built on a different idea that puts individual liberty as the central idea. And the American Declaration of Independence declares universally, that all human beings are created are endowed by their Creator with "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." So that means everybody, Hong Kongese, Taiwanese, Chinese, Indians, Africans. everybody.

And Americans have been historically pretty persistent in trying to promote those ideas, even though they have been struggling to realize them at home. So that's been the struggle within the society. So I think that in fact there are competing ideas there, my resolution or my suggestion about that is that as long as the U.S. and China compete peacefully in the world in which they are coexisting, each to show which model can better govern your society and better produce what people want, that seems to me to be a reasonable issue. And whether given the complexities of the 21st century, and the absolute overload of information and misinformation with social technologies and all the various media, whether a society like the U.S. can actually remain unified or ends up becoming so sharply divided or can function successfully as opposed to being dysfunctional which our government has certainly been recently, or, on the other hand, whether the Chinese system falls victim to the traditional weaknesses and failures of an autocracy because it becomes more insecure, becomes more controlling, and becomes more cautious, and therefore more limiting of the imagination and innovation that comes from a more open and freer society, we'll see.

My suggestion about this has always been we should let the experiment play out in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. It may turn out that everybody agrees to be governed more like this. And maybe 50 years from now, everybody agrees it needs to be more like that. I'm sorry, that's not a very concise answer.

And Trump, another big wild card. So for most of you, you probably are having trouble believing that Donald Trump will be the nominee of the Republican Party for election in 2024. Certainly, most Americans have been very slow to wake up to the fact. Henry mentioned it, and I mentioned it, both of us in Munich.

The elephant in the room was this idea that, wait a minute, is Trump real? Could this be happening? Is this America? What the hell is going on? This was basically the question over and over. And I would say, yes, it's real. Trump will be the Republican nominee. If the election were held today, it's essentially a toss-up. He's actually slightly ahead in most of the swing states.

So if he should return to office, then I think this will be a very different relationship. And I think we saw the first installment of that in his first term. But in this first term, you had a president who hadn't really figured out how government worked and had in the government many people who were traditional American foreign policy types like say, James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense whom Trump found frustrated him because he would want something to happen but Trump hadn't figured out how to cause it to happen. The system resisted him. I think this time, it would be likely to have lieutenants who are more loyal and would be able to do more of the things that he intended to do. And so I would say, again, if Thucycides was watching, he would say that, stay tuned. Yes.

Beijing News

Thank you, Prof. Allison. I'm from the Beijing News. I have a question also about the U.S. elections. So what's your anticipation for the relations between China and the United States in the year 2024, as we all know the relations tend to be much more fragile in the election year than in other normal years? And you just shared your view on what would happen if former president Donald Trump was reelected. So what would happen if President Biden was reelected? Would there be some more positive policies toward China since he's already had four years in office? Thank you.

Graham Allison

Very good questions. Thank you. That gives me an opportunity to say something that I wanted to say. So let me be precise here.

Though I've said to several people already, I want to apologize as an American for what you're likely to see in the year ahead. The U.S. has entered what Americans call our "silly season", in which case the hyperbole that's so common in political discourse already, becomes so extreme that connection between what comes out of politicians' mouths and reality almost disconnects. Unfortunately, that's true for both candidates, for both campaigns.

In the case of this 2024 campaign, one thing almost everybody can agree on is bashing China. So you're gonna hear lots of terrible, nasty things said about China by the two candidates, by candidates for the Senate, by candidates for Congress. So you can hardly get in trouble in the U.S. for saying something nasty about China. These people seem to compete to see who can be tougher on China than the other guy.

And what I say to Chinese colleagues in the government and outside, especially for people in the press, you have to remember, Americans are strange and American campaigns are unusual. So Americans are people that engage in American football games, in which two people who know each other well, on the opposite teams, play for 60 minutes, trying to crush the other person violently, and then at the end of the game, put their arms around each other and go and have a beer. I have some Chinese students at Harvard. They said, this is crazy; you can't have one hand slapping someone and the other hand hugging them. And I said, normal people maybe don't do that, but Americans do. So it's a pretty strange behavior.

So here's the one consolation in that picture. Remember, however nasty anything is that's said by either candidate, Trump or Biden, each will say even nastier things about their American opponent. I'm not trying to excuse this or justify it, but when you hear someone say something about Xi Jinping or China that you think, wait a minute, this is just over the top, watch and see what they say about their American opponent, it will be even more extreme. Again, I'm not trying to justify, I'm just trying to explain so we gonna understand the context.

For the second question, let me go back to the point I made earlier. I think in the San Francisco meeting, and in what the Chinese government calls "the spirit of San Francisco" that's followed, you get a pretty good picture of Biden, and what he believes about the relationship between the U.S. and China. Though he did not like the fact that the relationship was spiraling downwards, he began a mid-course correction after halfway through his term that began at Bali where he and Xi had, again, a very good conversation. This is back in the fall of 2022. It was then the balloon incident. That blew things, of course, for a bit, but which then was recovered in the first meetings between Jake Sullivan and Wang Yi, and then by Biden and Xi in San Francisco.

So I believe their serious private, candid conversation was about building not a floor, as I said, but a foundation for a stable, sustainable relationship going forward. They'll have a big chunk of competition and rivalry, with a big chunk of cooperation and partnership. And I think they're each both struggling as their governments are struggling to find ways to articulate that, which is another reason why, as Henry and I were talking earlier, I think this is an opportunity for people in the analytic community, both in China and in the U.S., to try to help appreciate that the reality does really require that both of these things are gonna be happening at the same time. It's gonna be very uncomfortable; it's gonna be messy. But it is still how Wu and Yue got to the shore, okay? If you're in me and I'm in you, I don't want to commit suicide, you don't want to commit suicide, so we're probably gonna find a way to coexist.

Phoenix New Media

Thank you, professor. I'm Harry from Phoenix New Media and I'm a colleague of Emily. So I also went to the Munich Security Conference this year and I'm very interested in Professors' Climate MAD (mutual assured destruction). I think it's a good concept. It's popular maybe in part of elites or policy-makers. But I think for the populists, especially the climate skeptics like Donald Trump, they would not buy it.

So how do you turn a wonderful concept into action? Thank you.

Graham Allison

I think first, it will help to have both in the analytic community and in the press discussion of what means Climate MAD. Most people don't quite get it. I think now, today, most people agree climate is a serious threat. Those people agree that we need to take major actions to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. But most people still haven't quite got to the point that John Kennedy got to after the Cuban Missile Crisis. They say, wait a minute, we live on a very small planet. This is a little teeny planet, and it's in an enclosed biosphere. And it's just a physical fact that my greenhouse gas emissions and yours go into the same biosphere. It doesn't really make much difference which one of us emitted the greenhouse gases. The impact is the same on both of us. And either of us could, on the previous trajectory, make the whole thing really uninhabitable for both of us. That would be crazy. So that's a pretty powerful motivation.

And I think actually the government is recognizing that motivation. China dramatically have now taken it seriously, advancing the technologies that will allow human beings to meet their energy demands, which are going to meet one way or the other, by renewable alternatives that don't have such climate consequences.

So I think this is an area in which I think there's general public recognition but where one could make more intelligible what the potential risks are, and why, as I say frequently, China made a great leap for mankind in advancing green technologies at prices that could be affordable globally, that allow people to meet energy demands with fewer greenhouse emissions. I would say the same thing in the U.S. So from the US side, Biden certainly gets the idea, and a substantial part of what is the Inflation Reduction Act is about is setting very ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and then trying to develop the technologies or trying to deploy the technologies that'll make this possible.

So that's the good news side of it. But as we go back to the earlier question, the bad news side is that each will care about whether China makes the technology advances or the U.S. does. Well, if it's made and both of us can use it, that's great. So I always say to people, suppose a vaccine or a medicine was invented in China that would help my wife who had a disease recover, I will give thanks to whoever did it. So those are advances for mankind. But at the same time, they have distributional consequences about which will end up struggling. Biden can get it. It's a great example where if my survival requires, well, that's pretty compelling. And that should constrain unreasonable competitive instincts. But I think the balance will be the challenge for leadership. So I think in Biden and Xi Jinping, we have leaders who understand that.

9. Biden’s plan for Gaza pier endangers U.S. troops, experts warn

There are always risks. Is the mission important enough to US interests to risk the lives of our service members? If so, are we allowing the military to use all means necessary to successfully accomplish the mission and provide sufficient force protection? Or more specifically what political constraints are being placed on the military that may limit the ability to successfully accomplish and limit necessary force protection actions. For example, does not allowing US troops to conduct activities on land to ensure the defense of the beachhead put our troops at greater risk by making them dependent on Israel and Hamas for protection? I think if unconstrained by politics the military would have a greater chance of ensuring success and protecting the force. That of course is not possible. There will always be political contestants. Military leaders have to work within those political constraints and the real art is to achieve success and protection within or despite those constraints. But political leaders need to know that their political constraints may put the troops at great risk and if something goes wrong they must share in the balme.

Biden’s plan for Gaza pier endangers U.S. troops, experts warn

Skeptics fear the humanitarian operation will be an enticing target for Hamas or other militants

By Dan Lamothe

March 31, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

The Washington Post · by Dan Lamothe · March 31, 2024

The Biden administration’s plan to install a floating pier off the Gaza coast as part of a broad international initiative to feed starving Palestinians will endanger the U.S. service members who must build, operate and defend the structure from attack, military experts say, a risk with enormous political consequences for the president should calamity strike.

The effort, U.S. officials say, could deliver up to 2 million meals per day into the war-ravaged territory, where a famine is feared amid Israel’s sustained bombardment and what critics say are its extreme restrictions on the flow of food, medicine and other humanitarian aid.

While the Pentagon maintains that no U.S. troops will deploy into Gaza, it has disclosed little about how long the operation could last and how it intends to ensure the safety of those involved, alarming some in Congress and other critics of the president’s plan. Military officials declined to answer questions from The Washington Post about where the pier will be located and what security measures will be taken, citing a desire not to telegraph its plans.

The Americans’ fixed proximity to the fighting and the intense anger at the United States for its support of Israel will render the pier an enticing target for Hamas or another of the region’s militant groups — many of whom receive arms and military guidance from adversary Iran, skeptics of the operation warn. Rocket fire, attack drones and divers or speedboats hauling explosives all will pose a threat, they said.

Paul Kennedy, a retired Marine Corps general who led major humanitarian operations after natural disasters in Nepal and the Philippines, called it a “worthy goal” for the United States to reduce civilian suffering in Gaza. But he questioned whether the U.S. military is the proper entity to be involved.

“If a bomb went off in that location,” he said, “the American public will ask, ‘What the hell were they doing there in the first place?’”

Israel-Gaza war

(Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images)

Tensions are rising between the United States and Israel over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to invade Rafah. The Israeli military said Wednesday that it was continuing its raid on al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where people said they were trapped in dire conditions.

For context: Understand what’s behind the Israel-Gaza war.

End of carousel

John Kirby, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said that the assembly and operation of the pier will bring relief to thousands of Gazans, and is an important mission that will make a difference.

“But we know that such missions are never risk-free,” Kirby said. “That’s particularly so in a war zone like Gaza. There will not be U.S. troops on the ground, and we know our military leaders will make every effort to ensure their safety as they build and operate this pier.”

This account is based on interviews with eight current and former U.S. national security officials familiar with the Gaza operation’s ongoing planning or otherwise knowledgeable about the complex coordination required to safely conduct humanitarian missions of such a scale.

Those who defended the plan said the risk is real, but manageable, and that the United States is showing leadership by looking for new ways to feed Palestinians trapped by the fighting.

Several, however, cited the deadly terrorist bombings in Beirut in 1983 and during the U.S. evacuation of Afghanistan in 2021 as examples of the immense difficulty protecting U.S. service members during extended stays in vulnerable conditions.

The former left 241 U.S. service members dead. The latter killed 13 U.S. troops alongside an estimated 170 Afghans, and remains a low point for the Biden administration and the focus of an ongoing oversight investigation in the Republican-controlled House.

President Biden announced the Gaza pier deployment during his State of the Union address March 7, saying it will enable a “massive increase” in humanitarian assistance. The United States and other nations have, for the last several weeks, airdropped aid into Gaza, but those efforts have not met the demand.

The pier idea has been met with a mixed response, with the International Rescue Committee and other aid organizations saying the United States must use its influence to press Israel to let in more humanitarian deliveries by land. Israeli officials have refused to open Gaza’s northern crossing, citing security concerns, while in the south a tedious inspection process has limited the volume of aid that can enter.

Israel has accused the United Nations agency responsible for distributing most aid within the enclave of diverting supplies to Hamas, and said that delays have been caused by logistical problems among aid organizations, including a shortage of drivers.

The Army-led pier operation will involve about 1,000 U.S. troops and four Army ships that deployed from southeastern Virginia on March 12. After an estimated 30-day transit, the vessels are expected to pull in offshore, where the soldiers will build the floating steel structure and an 1,800-foot, two-lane causeway stretching from the edge of the Mediterranean Sea to a beachhead.

All deliveries will be staged and inspected in Cyprus before being loaded onto vessels that carry them to the pier. U.S. personnel will move supplies to the causeway, but they will not leave it, defense officials have said. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has expressed support for the maritime plan, saying that Israeli forces will ensure aid reaches those it should.

Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Biden’s top military adviser, told reporters last week that troops’ safety is “at the top of the list anytime we put our forces any place in harm’s way.” The United States will take measures to protect the soldiers, he said, and Israel and other countries are expected to assist with security. He did not elaborate.

Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Central Command, which coordinates all U.S. military operations in the Middle East, has held meetings in the region to set conditions for security and other requirements for the pier to work as envisioned, Brown said.

Brown said he received assurances from Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, his Israeli counterpart, that aid coming over the pier will not be subject to bottlenecks.

Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, Centcom’s top commander, also sought to reassure lawmakers in congressional hearings earlier in March. But “strong reservations” remain, said Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking Republican, and other GOP senators in a letter to Biden last week.

“We are gravely concerned,” they wrote to the White House, “that the Defense Department has given too little consideration to the likelihood that Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other U.S.-designated terrorist organizations operation in Gaza would attempt to attack the U.S. personnel that will be deployed to this mission.”

Officials with Kurilla’s headquarters in Tampa declined to answer questions from The Post about what security measures will be taken, and U.S. officials have not publicly disclosed where along the Gaza coastline the pier will be installed.

James Stavridis, a retired admiral and former supreme allied commander of NATO, characterized the risk as “modest” saying he believes the mission is “sensible and achievable.”

If U.S. forces come under attack, it is most likely to originate by air, Stavridis said, arguing that the nearby positioning of a Navy warship equipped with an Aegis ballistic missile defense system should be sufficient to protect personnel on or near the floating pier.

U.S. sailors have repeatedly used the system off Yemen to take down missiles and attack drones launched by Iran-backed Houthi militants who, since November, have prosecuted an aggressive assault on commercial and military vessels transiting the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. It has proved mostly successful, though a handful of Houthi attacks have slipped through, and a few civilian mariners have been killed.

To guard against manned and unmanned surface vessels that could pose threats, Stavridis said, commanders could position Navy SEALs or other armed personnel in small, high-speed boats, with Israeli security forces providing protection on land.

Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine general who led Central Command from 1997 to 2000, said a number of adversaries could target the pier, including Hamas and the Islamic State. He cited the 2000 attack on the USS Cole at a port in Yemen, in which al-Qaeda operatives drove a speedboat packed with explosives into the destroyer, killing 17 sailors and injuring dozens more.

Zinni predicted that the pier will have rings of security, with Israeli forces and others involved but U.S. troops providing the innermost layer of protection. Aircraft overhead also would be valuable, he said.

“The IDF is very capable, obviously — but I would still want my own internal security force,” he said.

Zinni said the mission seems reasonable, both to alleviate suffering and send the message that the United States cares about Palestinian civilians.

“It’s important for us to show that we’ve gone the distance with humanitarian concerns, or we’ll be seen as totally one-sided on this,” he said.

Joseph Votel, a retired Army general who oversaw Central Command from 2016 to 2019, said the Pentagon is “probably” going to be in a position off Gaza to provide adequate security. U.S. forces, he said, will be “well alerted and cognizant of the threat,” and probably have ample intelligence support.

Votel, now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said the more significant challenge may be determining how the aid is distributed once it’s onshore. That, he said, is where the “real magic” will be.

“I think this is a pretty big undertaking,” he said. “But I think the benefit here is pretty significant.”

Others are less optimistic.

Jerry Hendrix, a retired naval officer and senior fellow at the Sagamore Institute, asserted that no matter what security is put in place, the causeway will be “highly vulnerable.” He called the plan “stupid.”

“There’s so much downside risk on this for what I think is relatively small upside in terms of potential to relieve the supply shortage and food shortage in the area,” Hendrix said, arguing that the delivery of more food over land routes is “the only method that brings a noticeable change to the Palestinian condition.”

Hendrix warned, too, of the unpredictability in what will happen ashore, where people’s desperation could create chaos, surging crowds and a new location for friction between Israeli forces and Palestinians.

“At some point in time, those supplies are effectively going to move from IDF-controlled territory or security into Palestinian hands,” he said. “And at that point in time, the reality is that the United States will not have control of those supplies at that interface point.”

Kennedy, the retired Marine general, recalled the aftermath of a typhoon that hit the Philippines in 2013. As U.S. forces deployed there to assist, he was concerned that Abu Sayyaf, a militant group there, would launch attacks on the Americans.

U.S. forces were not allowed to bring weapons on the deployment, he said, so he asked the Philippine government to position snipers nearby and had U.S. Marines work alongside them as observers.

“You’ve been entrusted with the lives of fellow citizens, and the children of fellow citizens, so your first obligation is force protection,” Kennedy said. “You have to ensure that your troops are safeguarded.”

Each day that U.S. forces remain involved is a day that they could come under attack, he assessed.

“There’s a point of diminishing returns, right?” Kennedy said. “They need to build that thing as quickly as possible, turn it over to any competent civilian authority — and get the hell out of there.”

The Washington Post · by Dan Lamothe · March 31, 2024

10. Opinion | The internet was supposed to make humanity smarter. It’s failing.

Interesting food for thought (if we were still thinking critically).

Opinion | The internet was supposed to make humanity smarter. It’s failing.

By Catherine Rampell

Columnist

Follow author

March 29, 2024 at 4:46 p.m. EDT

The Washington Post · by Catherine Rampell · March 29, 2024

Not long ago, humankind seemed destined to grow more informed over time.

After all, we’ve had millennia to accumulate scientific findings, brilliant literature and new technologies. Then something miraculous happened: The internet made it easy to disseminate and democratize all that wisdom. With reliable broadband and ubiquitous smartphones, the entire sum of human knowledge is now at our fingertips 24/7.

Yet here we are in 2024, and the internet seems to have made many of us so much dumber. Or at least, much more susceptible to wildly false information.

For example:

Young women have been dumping their birth control because viral influencer videos claim ye olde “rhythm method” is safer.
The tragic collapse of a Baltimore bridge, after a ship lost power, launched a zillion viral conspiracy theories blaming diversity education, capitalism, immigrants and (inevitably) the Jews.
The Islamic State practically had to beg for credit for its slaughter of civilians at a Russian concert hall because too many conspiracy theorists have blamed other culprits. (“I had never considered before that we might solve terrorism by becoming so collectively stupid that no one can agree who perpetrated the attack,” observed tech policy researcher Eli Dourado. “No point in terrorizing if you don’t get the credit!”)

These are examples reported in just the past week. The broader array of viral conspiracy theories weaves an even richer tapestry, covering both the ghoulish (9/11 truthers, the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre) and the mundane (the price of a hamburger or the shape of the Earth).

So how is it that the internet has made so many of us less informed?

It’s easy to understand how mistruths can spread. Lies can be optimized for virality. The truth cannot because it’s constrained by reality, which is sometimes boring. So it’s no surprise that lies can do better online; they can be designed to appeal to their audiences’ biases and desires. The underlying principle is not new. As the saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.

The internet also makes it easier to find communities that can reinforce and embellish any given conspiracy theory, no matter how improbable. “Old wives’ tales” and hoaxes are not new, of course, but it’s hard to imagine QAnon lore proliferating as widely and quickly and with such elaborate detail in a pre-internet era. Those who wish to spread misinformation — perhaps for political or financial gain — can now efficiently share their message at scale.

The puzzle is why consumers haven’t grown savvier about spotting misinformation. During the 2016 election cycle, lots of Americans proved easily manipulable by Russian trolls and disinformation agents on Facebook. But those Facebook victims were disproportionately older users who hadn’t grown up in the digital era and presumably had less practice scrutinizing the credibility of online sources.

As new generations arose who were digital natives, I (naively) assumed Americans would become better at differentiating between a viral social-media anecdote and a vetted news story or credible statistical source. Somehow, the opposite has happened. Gen Zers appear to struggle with news literacy as much boomers, at least based on the large share of young people who trust and reshare random TikTok influencers for hard news.

(And if Americans are this lousy at navigating our sources now, what hope is there as artificial intelligence and deepfakes become more convincing?)

In the United States, at least, one possible explanation for this problem is our long-documented paranoid style of politics. Americans’ tendency toward anti-establishment, anti-authority suspicions has created a profitable media business model: Claiming that the “mainstream” media is lazy or corrupt and that your own brave upstart news organization is the one honorable truth teller. This has been Fox News’s brand since its inception, even though Fox has been the most-watched cable-news network for decades. Now, it , too, is falling victim to similar “anti-establishment” campaigns from fringier right-wing news organizations.

Similar trends exist on the left, too, with smaller media organizations asking readers to smash that “subscribe” button to learn what “corporate media” supposedly won’t tell you.

This kind of marketing works by capitalizing on, and reinforcing, declining trust in traditional news media. And to be clear: We in traditional media have certainly done things to warrant losing some public trust. We sometimes get things wrong, including on public health and foreign wars — perhaps making viral conspiracy theories about birth control and terrorist attacks more believable.

Now, I’d argue traditional news organizations are more diligent in trying to get things right and more likely to correct their mistakes than is the case for your average one-man-band Instagram influencer. But at some level, it doesn’t matter. Too many media companies have already validated the “one true prophet” marketing model. And too many news consumers, of every age, are committed to the bit.

So of course makeup influencers are considered to be as authoritative as a legacy news service, if not more so; certainly, they’re more likely to cater to their consumers’ tastes for what “truth” should look like.

The Washington Post · by Catherine Rampell · March 29, 2024

11. Turning the tools of propagandists against themselves

I just ordered this book on both Kindle and in hardcover.

I think everyone in the GEC (State's Global Engagement center) and at 4th PSYOP Group and whomever deals with information and influence may want to read this book.

My quick scan on Kindle this morning, particularly Chapter 11, How to Win an Information War makes me think I am going to be reading this book (or parts of it more than once):

From Chapter 11:

“Some of Delmer’s best insights came from recognizing his own susceptibility to propaganda. In his memoirs he describes his own childhood when, as a British boy in Berlin, he surrendered to German war-fever in World War I, repeating the patriotic words that took him over, so that their exaltation became his, and he was swallowed up by propaganda. He felt so impelled to imitate others that he was about to hang out a British flag to celebrate German victories. As he rushed to hang it from the window, his mother’s hand shot out and pulled him back, and with a start he realized how ridiculous his actions were.

I keep thinking about this jolt, this moment when you suddenly step outside the performance you didn’t even realize you were putting on. The struggle against propaganda starts with this jolt into awareness. Delmer may never have preached lectures about democracy, but so many of his games, disguises, deceptions, and misdirections were designed to pull you free.”

From the review, Joshua Huminksi asks some good questions here.

Conclusion:

Pomerantsev's book is an enjoyable blend of history, biography, and contemporary observation. That it is not a pure attempt at any one of the three makes it unique and worth reflecting upon. Will the West ever get out onto the playing field of the information war? It remains to be seen. In the interim, curious networks of information warriors like Bellingcat and others are attempting to subvert the propaganda and falsehoods of Russia. Yet the challenge will remain: How do you get people to believe the truth when they simply are simply content with performative theater, half-truths, and comforting lies?

Turning the tools of propagandists against themselves

https://www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/turning-the-tools-of-propagandists-against-themselves?utm

BYJOSHUA HUMINSKI.

MARCH 30, 2024

Will the West ever get out onto the playing field of the information war? It remains to be seen. But the importance of doing so is borne out in a new book, writes our book reviewer, Joshua Huminski.

e are swimming in a vast ocean of information and content. How much of it is true and how much of it is false is unclear. The waters are so muddy and murky that it is difficult to tell at the best of times. Even trusted sources often find themselves victims of mis– and dis–information, regurgitating and recirculating propaganda and falsehoods. With a never–ending stream of content, information swiftly becomes noise and finding truth is less an exercise of seeking facts and more about finding information that simply conforms to your pre–existing biases and beliefs.

How to Win an Information War | Peter Pomerantsev | Public Affairs

It is this cognitive noise that nation–states like Russia and China seek to exploit through their information warfare, propaganda, and mis– and dis–information campaigns. It is less an exercise in convincing someone of ‘truth’ and more of an effort to further stir the waters with a ‘firehose of falsehoods’ as one RAND report defined it. Yet, we often think that contemporary problems are somehow novel or unique, but as author Peter Pomerantsev shows in his thoroughly enjoyable new book, “How to Win and Information War,” these challenges, and indeed the solutions to them, are not so unique. Pomerantsev looks to World War II and the UK’s Political Warfare Executive to see how one propagandist, Sefton Delmer, turned the tables on the Nazi regime.

This is, first and foremost, a work of historical non–fiction, but the parallels for today are vividly on display. Pomerantsev's frequent asides and injection of commentary apply Delmer’s experiences and expertise to the challenges of today, but in a way that feels natural and conversational. He is, in a way, helping the reader along, educating them, showing them the truth, and the process of propaganda. It is really rather clever.

Delmer’s background growing up in World War I Germany and, later, England, made him a product of two worlds and offered him unique insights into identity and messaging. As a journalist, he saw first–hand the rise of the Nazis, even posing as an aide to Ernst Röhm, the head of the Nazi’s Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers), to gain access to a party rally. He followed Adolf Hitler on his city–to–city campaign, seeing the Nazi leader up close and looking beyond the performative façade before he became dictator.

After the outbreak of World War II, and unlike many of his compatriots, he sought not to preach to the converted, but asked a key question: “How do you deliver truth to people who are resistant to it?” He found that, as Pomerantsev writes, propaganda is much more than just mobilizing content. “Instead of ‘evidence,’ whether fake or real, what people were looking for was a sense that they were special, that they were surrounded by enemies, that they were part of a common destiny.”

Delmer landed on a key truth, one that, ironically, many struggle to comprehend even today: “What was the point of talking to like–minded people and preaching to the converted? How would that ever help get under the psychic skin of those under the sway of Nazi propaganda?” This is endemic not just internationally, but domestically, as well. Organizations are keen to connect with the already converted, to preach to the choir as it were, and are loath to understand, let alone reach outside of that narrowly defined bubble. Non–adherents aren’t just misinformed, they are wrong. Few took the time to understand why Trump was so popular, his supporters—critics argued—were just wrong or racist, or both, really.

Delmer’s first radio station attempted to conceal its identity from its listeners, purporting to be from an insider who railed against the Nazi Party but praised the German Army. It was the fat–cat Nazis who were the problem, not the noble inheritors of the Prussian military tradition. It sought to create a space for dissent and disobedience, while adhering to a belief in greater Germany. It encouraged acts of defiance even if listeners didn’t think that was what it was about. A later program, der Chef, sought an entirely different aim: “The aim was not to dupe the listener but to give them a safe way, both physically and mentally, to escape Nazi media.” Delmer wanted the Germans (and in particular the Kriegsmarine) to know that der Chef, in contrast with his previous radio propaganda programs, was British in origin, again creating a safe space for dissent and plausible deniability if discovered as it sounded very much like other Nazi propaganda programs.

The success that Delmer achieved is as much a function of its time and place as anything else. World War II was a total war in which the consequences of failure were not merely adjusted national borders, but occupation, subjugation, and atrocity. The United Kingdom was on a war–footing in all aspects of society and the government, and bureaucratic institutions reflected this reality. That the government was willing to entertain the notion, let alone allow and support Delmer to develop these radio stations and embark on his propaganda campaigns, illustrates the seriousness with which London took the threat from Nazi Germany. The military, intelligence, and civil service support that fed him the information and gossip that made his radio programs real for audiences could only have occurred in a wartime environment.

Could such a political warfare campaign occur today? Likely not. The United States is, at present, reactive to events rather than proactively shaping desired outcomes. Russia clearly believes it is at war with the United States and the West, and China is moving aggressively to divide America’s allies in the Indo–Pacific and achieve regional hegemony. By contrast the United States is lurching from crisis to crisis, carrying out actions but with little conception of the desired effect or desired end state beyond vague notions of the ‘liberal international order.’ This is not to suggest that Washington shift to an economy mobilized for war or the reestablishment of conscription, but rather it needs to better leverage all the tools of its arsenal in a concerted fashion to shape the environment, deter conflict, and create more favorable conditions for itself and the Western-led liberal international order.

There are of course risks when wading into the muddy waters of the information space, which Pomerantsev articulates well: “But even if such deceptive operations can achieve precise and short–term goals, they will be found out today much faster than they were in World War II.” He presciently continues, “This is the danger of dabbling in disinformation even in a ‘good cause:’ it nurtures an environment of endless distrust that benefits authoritarian instincts. If you play that game, take care that the negative side effects don’t outweigh the benefits.”

Unfortunately, the information war in America has also been politicized. Efforts to establish a ‘disinformation board’ or merely call out foreign election interference are seen as direct attacks against one party. For many officials, it is less about foreign subversion of American democracy and more about political power plays. Yet the threat remains and indeed grows. Whether in response to geopolitical crises like Hamas’ attack on Israel or over apps like TikTok, mis– and dis–information is ever present.

Washington certainly has the tools to conduct political warfare operations against Russia and China, but they are so siloed, so disconnected, and their use so fraught with political peril that mounting a coherent operation is nigh impossible. Is it any wonder then that the best the United States can muster is poorly executed strategic communications campaigns? Washington is good at actions in isolation, but rarely on follow–through or in connections across agencies and departments. Sanctions are a good example. Washington has implemented robust sanctions on Russian businesses but has done little to pursue secondary and tertiary sanctions or enforce the original sanctions.

Perhaps more than anything else, this inability to think and act in a proactive manner is the result of Washington’s inability to define a desired effect before acting. Motion is not the same as movement, yet many within the Washington policy ecosystem assume them to be the same. Even then, once an action is taken, that is often the end of the discussion. Covert action by the Central Intelligence Agency is emblematic of this—it is highly proficient in executing specific actions, but if those actions are disconnected from broader policy efforts, Langley’s efforts will fall flat or come to nothing.

Pomerantsev's book is an enjoyable blend of history, biography, and contemporary observation. That it is not a pure attempt at any one of the three makes it unique and worth reflecting upon. Will the West ever get out onto the playing field of the information war? It remains to be seen. In the interim, curious networks of information warriors like Bellingcat and others are attempting to subvert the propaganda and falsehoods of Russia. Yet the challenge will remain: How do you get people to believe the truth when they simply are simply content with performative theater, half-truths, and comforting lies?

AboutJoshua Huminski:

Joshua C. Huminski is the Senior Vice President for National Security & Intelligence Programs and the Director of the Mike Rogers Center at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress.

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.

12. What A Missed Terror Warning Says About U.S.-Russian Ties And Putin's Thinking

Note the warning on this Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty report:

If you are in Russia or the Russia-controlled parts of Ukraine and hold a Russian passport or are a stateless person residing permanently in Russia or the Russia-controlled parts of Ukraine, please note that you could face fines or imprisonment for sharing, liking, commenting on, or saving our content, or for contacting us.

What A Missed Terror Warning Says About U.S.-Russian Ties And Putin's Thinking

rferl.org · by Todd Prince · March 30, 2024

In December 2017, just a few weeks before millions of Russians were to begin celebrating New Year’s -- one of the country’s most beloved holidays -- Russia’s main intelligence agency announced it had foiled an Islamic State plot to kill revelers as they visited prominent attractions in the country’s second largest city, St. Petersburg.

While it was far from the first time the Federal Security Service had claimed it had thwarted a terrorist attack, the announcement was unusual for its acknowledgment of where it got the tip from: the United States.

And the Kremlin even went so far as to note that President Vladimir Putin, himself a former KGB officer, personally thanked then-U.S. President Donald Trump. A month later, the directors of Russia's three main intelligence and espionage agencies all traveled to Washington, a highly unusual occurrence.

A similar thing happened just two years later.

These may have been highwater marks in U.S.-Russian intelligence sharing.

Three weeks ago, in early March, a warning about an “imminent” terror plot was transmitted to Russian intelligence agencies. The U.S. Embassy also went public with a warning to American citizens. The warning, which was picked up by other embassies, apparently infuriated the Kremlin.

At a March 19 meeting with security officials, Putin confirmed that Russia had received the intelligence tip -- but dismissed it as “outright propaganda” and “blackmail” intended to “intimidate and destabilize our society.”

Three days later, more than 140 people at the Crocus City Hall, an upscale concert venue on Moscow’s outskirts, were killed when gunmen opened fire on concertgoers and then set the venue ablaze. It was worst terrorist attack in Russia in two decades.

Embed share

The code has been copied to your clipboard.

width px height px

The URL has been copied to your clipboard

No media source currently available

0:00 0:02:03 0:00

For some former U.S. intelligence officers, blame for poor cooperation falls squarely on Moscow’s shoulders: Russian security services see intelligence sharing as an opportunity for strategic and political gain above all else, they say.

Russia’s security services are ““very predatorial. They're not interested in collaboration, but use such engagements to develop targeting information and to harass,” said Douglas London, a retired senior CIA operations officer who was involved in the December 2017 information exchange.” That's just the nature of their creed, their business.”

Russian agencies would rather pursue U.S. intelligence help with Kremlin opponents living in the West, labeling them terrorists or criminals, he said.

It’s “misleading” to look at the St. Petersburg success as an indication of the state of the intelligence relationship, he told RFE/RL.

“Daily engagement was never good and it never got better. And anytime a U.S. administration said [the lack of cooperation] ‘doesn't make sense. We should try harder,’ it just blew up,” said London, now an associate professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

Suspicions, Misgivings, Doubts, And Old Habits

Following the Soviet collapse, as Moscow and Washington sought to bury the Cold War hatchet, the two sides sought to encourage a way to share intelligence in an array of areas: terrorism, drug and human trafficking, and cybercrime, among other illicit activities.

Those efforts ramped up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Putin became the first leader to call the White House and offer Russian assistance in what the United States dubbed the “global war on terror.”

But old habits were hard to break for some Russian officials and officers, particularly hard-liners in the security and military establishment. This includes Putin, a 16-year KGB veteran who headed the Federal Security Service, or FSB, before becoming president.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (file photo)

That was doubly true where Islamic extremists were concerned. For Kremlin hawks, the war in Chechnya, where Islamic radicals from the Middle East had gained a foothold in the 1990s, was ground zero.

A sore point for the Kremlin was that some Chechen political leaders, and even militants, sought refuge in the United States and Europe. Moscow saw them as terrorists. Washington, not so much.

Russia was plagued by a raft of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings in the 2000s. The worst came in September 2004, when Chechen and Ingush attackers seized an elementary school in the southern town of Beslan, holding more than 1,100 people hostage for nearly three days, until the standoff ended in a botched rescue attempt. More than 330 people died, the majority of them children.

Until the March 22 attack on Crocus City Hall, it was the deadliest terrorist attack of Putin’s presidency -- and Putin suggested the West was partly to blame.

A decade after Beslan, U.S. intelligence officials complained about a lack of cooperation with their Russian counterparts in the run-up to the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Moscow later acknowledged U.S. and other Western help in preventing attacks.

One bright spot: in 2011, the FSB tipped off the FBI and the CIA about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Chechen-born man who, along with his brother Dzhokhar and the rest of his family, received asylum in the United States in the 2000s. The FSB warned that Tsarnaev had embraced radical Islamism and feared he planned to return to Russia to join a militant group.

Two years later, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar set off two homemade bombs during the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring 281. A three-month FBI background check triggered by the Russian inquiry did not turn up any terrorism links.

A report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General found flaws in how U.S. agencies handled the Russian information, but also pointed out that the FSB failed to respond to a follow-up request by the Americans.

The FSB used to cooperate regularly with FBI counterparts on cybercrime issues. That blew up in 2016, when officers at the FSB’s cyberunit were arrested and charged with treason. Leaks to Russian media suggested the FSB officers were targeted for working with U.S. officials, and a rival intelligence agency may have orchestrated the investigation.

'Mind-Boggling' Behavior

U.S. and Russian intelligence services operate on different value systems, seriously complicating cooperation, said Steven Hall, who retired in 2015 after running Russian operations at the CIA.

Russians see intelligence sharing as a “Trojan horse” at times, he said in a 2017 report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Russia understands our Western, optimistic, hope-to-share approach, and will use it to what Putin views as his advantage, in a way the United States and the West would find mind-boggling,” he said.

Putin has reinvigorated Russia’s sprawling military and intelligence apparatus, which includes the FSB as well as the military intelligence agency known as the GRU, the foreign intelligence agency, or SVR, and other entities with overlapping priorities and budgets.

It’s resulted in competition and bitter rivalry, with some agencies undercutting one another as they seek primacy or bragging rights. Corruption is a consistent problem, as is the willingness of some agencies to enlist criminals or organized crime groups.

On several occasions, the two sides would be cooperating on a case when all of a sudden, the Russian side would stop sharing information.

The FBI was “left with the strong sense that the investigation was getting too close to individuals or organizations in Russia with ties to the Russian government,” Hall wrote.

Crocus City Attack

In December 2016, U.S. officials kicked out dozens of Russian diplomats, many believed to be intelligence officers working under diplomatic cover, and shuttered two Russian properties allegedly known as intelligence gathering facilities. Russia retaliated in kind.

U.S. officials later concluded that Russian intelligence, with Putin’s approval, had engaged in a sweeping campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Long-simmering tensions over Ukraine erupted in full with the Russian invasion of February 2022, sending bilateral relations plummeting. The United States stepped up sharing military intelligence with Kyiv, some of which has been used to target Russian forces.

Three weeks ago, on March 7, the U.S. Embassy issued its warning about a possible “imminent” attack within 48 hours. The day before, according to The New York Times, a CIA official in Moscow passed along a warning to Russian authorities, along with the details that IS-K, an offshoot of the extremist group Islamic State, was the organizer.

The Crocus City Hall attack occurred about two weeks later on March 22. Islamic State claimed responsibility, and the four men Russia has charged with carrying it out are from Tajikistan, one of the Central Asian countries whose citizens have boosted the ranks of IS-K since its founding in Afghanistan in 2014.

Important for Russian officials was that the public warning by the U.S. Embassy came a week before Russia’s presidential election, in which the Kremlin was determined to ensure a high turnout to help portray wide support for Putin.

“I think the Americans clearly gave this warning in good faith,” said Mark Galeotti, a British expert on Russian security agencies. “I think [Putin] got angry and thought this was, in fact, an attempt by the Americans to rattle Russians before the election.”

“Remember, one of the key Kremlin goals was precisely to ensure that there was a high turnout,” Galeotti said in an interview with RFE/RL. “If people are worried that some place where you cluster together might become a terrorist attack, then conceivably it might have affected turnout. So, I think Putin, imputing on Americans precisely the kind of goals that he might have had, decided to angrily strike back.”

In the aftermath, Putin and FSB Director Aleksandr Bortnikov, along with other officials, have continued to insist that Ukraine, and the United States, had a role to play, despite the absence of evidence.

Bortnikov acknowledged the U.S. intelligence warning but discounted it, calling it “of a general nature.”

“We reacted to this information, of course, and took appropriate measures,” he said on March 26.

Still, on the day that the U.S. Embassy warning went public, the FSB itself announced that it had foiled what it said was a plot by an Islamic State cell to attack a Moscow synagogue.

Intelligence And Disinformation

The United States may have chosen to make the threat public this time around because it was imminent and Washington did not have enough detail that would allow Russian services to foil the attack, London said.

Adding further nuance: a U.S. executive order dating back to 2015 mandates that U.S. intelligence agencies share warnings about possible terror attacks with other nations, even if those nations are adversaries, like Russia or Iran.

On January 4, twin suicide bombings in the Iranian city of Kerman killed 95 people, an attack Islamic State claimed responsibility for.

Embed share

The code has been copied to your clipboard.

width px height px

The URL has been copied to your clipboard

No media source currently available

0:00 0:01:19 0:00

Three weeks later, U.S. officials said they had provided Iran with advance warning about a possible Islamic State attack inside the country.

The U.S. warning was never confirmed or publicly acknowledged by Tehran.

Another problem that has undermined U.S.-Russian intelligence sharing, U.S. officials asserted, is Russia’s willingness to inject the information with propaganda or outright disinformation.

Russia has pushed the narrative that the United States created Islamic State as a pretext to maintain a presence in the Middle East, London said. That claim has been echoed by Iran’s state-controlled media for years, and even embraced by some Pakistani spy officers.

Glenn Corn, another former CIA agent who served in Russia, argued in a March 26 analysis for the Cipher Brief newsletter that the Russian intelligence claim about Islamic State was also aimed at deepening Moscow’s military presence in Central Asia.

Putin “projects. Everything nefarious [that] he does, he's assuming we're doing,” London said.

In a sign that some sort of sharing of classified information continues, Russia’s Interior Ministry on March 28 announced the extradition from the United States of a Russian man who had been accused of abusing his daughter in Florida, where the man lived.

The man was detained by U.S. authorities and extradited to Russia “as a result of interaction between law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation and the United States.”

RFE/RL correspondents Todd Prince and Mike Eckel reported from Washington, D.C. and Prague, respectively

RFE/RL has been declared an "undesirable organization" by the Russian government.

If you are in Russia or the Russia-controlled parts of Ukraine and hold a Russian passport or are a stateless person residing permanently in Russia or the Russia-controlled parts of Ukraine, please note that you could face fines or imprisonment for sharing, liking, commenting on, or saving our content, or for contacting us.

To find out more, click here.

Week in Russia Region Widget-GR-1878

Listen

Latest episode

A Horrific Postelection Attack

The Week Ahead In Russia

rferl.org · by Todd Prince · March 30, 2024

13. This US state is not covered by the NATO treaty. Some experts say that needs to change

Hmmm... Something I certainly did not know.

I cannot recall this ever being discussed in any professional military education class I have teken.

This US state is not covered by the NATO treaty. Some experts say that needs to change

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html

By Brad Lendon, CNN

6 minute read

Published 12:04 AM EDT, Sat March 30, 2024

A view of Diamondhead on the Oahu, Hawaii, coastline. Downtown Honolulu is to the right of Diamondhead. Eric Broder Van Dyke/iStockphoto/Getty Images

CNN —

Sweden became the newest member of NATO earlier this month, joining 31 nations in the security alliance, including the United States. Well, make that 49 of the 50 United States.

Because in a quirk of geography and history, Hawaii is not technically covered by the NATO pact.

If a foreign power attacked Hawaii – say the US Navy’s base at Pearl Harbor or the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command northwest of Honolulu – the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would not be obligated to rise to the Aloha State’s defense.

“It’s the weirdest thing,” says David Santoro, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu, who added that even most Hawaii residents have no idea their state is technically adrift of the alliance.

Sailors aboard the the USS Decatur render honors while passing the USS Arizona Memorial and the sunken battleship the USS Arizona during the 82nd Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day ceremony on Thursday, December 7, 2023, at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii. Mengshin Lin/AP

“People tend to assume Hawaii is part of the US and therefore it’s covered by NATO,” he says.

But, he concedes, the tip-off is in the alliance’s name – North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Hawaii is, of course, in the Pacific, and unlike California, Colorado or Alaska, the 50th state is not part of the continental US that reaches the North Atlantic Ocean on its eastern shores.

“The argument for not including Hawaii is simply that it’s not part of North America,” Santoro says.

The exception is spelled out in the Washington Treaty, the document that established NATO in 1949, a decade before Hawaii became a state.

While Article 5 of the treaty provides for collective self-defense in the event of a military attack on any member state, Article 6 limits the geographic scope of that.

“An armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America,” Article 6 says. It also says any island territories must be in the North Atlantic, north of the Tropic of Cancer.

A US State Department spokesperson confirmed that Hawaii is not covered by Article 5, but said Article 4, which says members will consult when “the territorial integrity, political independence or security” of any member is threatened, should cover any situation that could affect the 50th state.

The spokesperson also said any treaty amendment to include Hawaii would be unlikely to gain consensus because other members have territories outside of the boundaries set in Article 5.

Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Five Things Newsletter.

close dialog

You give us five minutes, we’ll give you five things you must know for the day.

Sign Me Up

By subscribing you agree to our

For instance, NATO did not join founding member the United Kingdom’s 1982 war with Argentina after Argentine troops invaded the Falkland Islands, a disputed British territory in the South Atlantic.

NATO has not responded to a CNN request for comment.

Hawaii, Guam, Taiwan and North Korea

Some experts say times have changed in the decades since the Washington Treaty was signed – and argue today’s political situation in the Indo-Pacific might require a rethink.

That’s because US military bases in Hawaii could play a vital role in both countering North Korean aggression as well as supporting any potential defense of Taiwan.

China’s ruling Communist Party claims the self-governing democratic island as its territory despite never having controlled it. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made “reunification” with Taiwan a key part of his overarching goal to “rejuvenate” the nation by 2049.

While Chinese leaders have said they hope to take control of the island via peaceful means, they have not ruled out doing so by force — and have ramped up military intimidation of the island in recent years.

The Taiwan Relations Act obligates Washington to provide weaponry for the island’s defense, and US President Joe Biden has suggested he would use US military personnel to defend it in the event of a Chinese invasion (though White House officials have said the US policy to leave that question ambiguous has not changed).

A 2022 wargame scenario run by the Center for a New American Security played out with China attacking US command and control installations in Hawaii as part of its war to take Taiwan by force.

Two key military appointments from China’s naval ranks reflects Xi’s territorial ambitions, analysts say

John Hemmings, senior director of the Indo-Pacific Foreign and Security Policy Program at the Pacific Forum, says Hawaii’s exclusion from NATO removes “an element of deterrence” when it comes to the possibility of a Chinese strike on Hawaii in support of any potential Taiwan campaign.

Leaving Hawaii out lets Beijing know that NATO’s European members potentially have a bit of an “escape clause” when it comes to defending US territory in such a hypothetical situation, he says.

“Why would we not put that element of deterrence at our disposal?” Hemmings says. “Why would we leave that off the table if it would actually stop (China) from an invasion of Taiwan?”

View of battleship row as explosions damage three American battleships during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, December 7, 1941. From left to right, the USS West Virginia, the USS Tennessee, and the USS Arizona. US Navy/Interim Archives/Getty Images

Hawaii’s strategic importance also has deep historical significance for the US. “This is where Pearl Harbor happened. This is where we were attacked that brought us into the Second World War, and – by the way – this is what also led to us to help liberate France,” he says.

“For Americans there is a direct link between this state and our involvement in the Second World War and ultimately our help in contributing to the victory over the Axis (the alliance of Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy).”

Hemmings also makes an argument for Guam, the US Pacific island territory some 3,000 miles farther west than Hawaii, to be included in NATO’s umbrella.

The island, which has long been a focal point of North Korean saber rattling, is home to Andersen Air Force Base, from which the US can launch its B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers across the Indo-Pacific.

Hemmings likens Guam’s exclusion from NATO to how the US left the Korean Peninsula outside of a line it drew across the Pacific to deter the Soviet Union and China from spreading communism in January 1950. Five months after the so-called Acheson Line was drawn, the Korean War began.

“The adversary feels emboldened to carry out military conflict and you end up having a war anyway,” Hemmings says.

The Pacific Forum’s Santoro also mentions Guam should be included under the NATO umbrella. “Strategically, Guam absolutely matters a lot more than Hawaii,” he says.

U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress bombers assigned to the 23rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron taxi for take off at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, as part of a routine Bomber Task Force mission, February 14, 2024. Master Sgt. Amy Picard/U.S. Air Force

‘Coalition of the willing’

Other analysts argue that were such a hypothetical attack to take place on Hawaii, or Guam, the deep and abiding ties that bind the US and its democratic allies would be substantially more significant in countries’ decision-making than a technicality in the NATO treaty.

In the event of an attack, “I would expect … the United States to try to put together a coalition of the willing involving primarily – but certainly not exclusively – regional allies,” says Luis Simon, a director of the Research Centre for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Brussels School of Governance in Belgium.

Simon cites the alliance’s strong and immediate response after the 9/11 attacks, the only time in its 74-year history that NATO has triggered the collective self-defense mechanism under Article 5.

NATO Fast Facts

“But Washington actually chose to channel its response through a coalition of the willing, and not through NATO Command,” he says. “I suspect we’d see a similar reaction in the case of an attack on either Guam or Hawaii, with the US wanting to retain full military control over (the response) and diplomatic flexibility.”

Simon also says he doesn’t see any real daylight between NATO members and their commitment to the US and the alliance.

NATO is a bedrock of the transatlantic democratic community. The US and other NATO members have touted unprecedented unity among the alliance in the face of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. And NATO has also hardened its shared rhetoric on China in recent years, vowing to address what they describe as the “systemic challenges” Beijing poses.

“I personally have little doubt they would be ready to provide different forms of assistance in case of an attack against US sovereign territory, including individually and through multilateral venues like the (European Union) or NATO,” he says.

CNN’s Jennifer Hansler contributed to this report.

14. A Russian Defector’s Killing Raises Specter of Hit Squads

I am reminded of Claire Sterling's 1981 book, The Terror Network and how the USSR was allegedly using terrorist cells to advance its interests. Would this have been considered terrorism back in the 1970s/1980s?

A Russian Defector’s Killing Raises Specter of Hit Squads

The death in Spain of Maksim Kuzminov, a pilot who delivered a helicopter and secret documents to Ukraine, has raised fears that the Kremlin is again targeting its enemies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/31/world/europe/russian-defector-murder-spain.html

Police officers investigating the parking garage in Villajoyosa, Spain, where the body of a Russian defector, Maksim Kuzminov, was found in February.Credit...Rafa Arjones/Informacion.Es, via Reuters

By Michael Schwirtz and José Bautista

Reporting from Villajoyosa, Spain, and Kyiv, Ukraine

March 31, 2024

Updated 8:37 a.m. ET

Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Russia and Ukraine? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

The men who killed Maksim Kuzminov wanted to send a message. This was obvious to investigators in Spain even before they discovered who he was. Not only did the killers shoot him six times in a parking garage in southern Spain, they ran over his body with their car.

They also left an important clue to their identity, according to investigators: shell casings from 9-millimeter Makarov rounds, a standard ammunition of the former Communist bloc.

“It was a clear message,” said a senior official from Guardia Civil, the Spanish police force overseeing the investigation into the killing. “I will find you, I will kill you, I will run you over and humiliate you.”

Mr. Kuzminov defected from Russia to Ukraine last summer, flying his Mi-8 military helicopter into Ukrainian territory and handing the aircraft along with a cache of secret documents to Ukrainian intelligence operatives. In doing so, he committed the one offense President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has said again and again he will never forgive: treachery.

Image

Mr. Kuzminov at a news conference in September in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital. A former Russian pilot, he defected to Ukraine in his military helicopter last summer.Credit...Vladyslav Musiienko/Associated Press

His killing in the seaside resort town of Villajoyosa last month has raised fears that Russia’s European spy networks continue to operate and are targeting enemies of the Kremlin, despite concerted efforts to dismantle them after Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022.

The map locates the resort town of Villajoyosa on the southeast coast of Spain. It also locates the town of Murcia, southwest of Villajoyosa

Russia’s intelligence services have been put on a war footing and begun operating at a level of aggressiveness at home and abroad reminiscent of the Stalin era, said Andrei Soldatov, an author and expert on Russia’s military and security services.

“It’s not about conventional espionage anymore,” he said. “It’s about operations — and these operations might include assassinations.”

In Spain, Mr. Kuzminov lived “an indiscreet life,” the senior Guardia Civil official said. He went to bars popular with Russian and Ukrainian clientele, burning through the money he had received from the Ukrainian state. He drove around Villajoyosa in a black Mercedes S-Class.

Exactly how the killers found him has not been established, though two senior Ukrainian officials said he had reached out to a former girlfriend, still in Russia, and invited her to come see him in Spain.

“This was a grave mistake,” one of the officials said.

Senior police officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said the killing bore hallmarks of similar attacks linked to the Kremlin, including the assassination of a former Chechen rebel commander in Berlin in 2019 and the poisoning of the former Russian military intelligence operative Sergei V. Skripal in Salisbury, England, in 2018. Mr. Skripal survived.

Image

Forensic experts at the site in Berlin where a former Chechen rebel commander was assassinated in 2019.Credit...Christoph Soeder/DPA, via Getty Images

The two hooded killers who appeared on surveillance camera footage from the parking garage of Mr. Kuzminov’s apartment complex were clearly professionals who carried out their mission and quickly disappeared, police officials said.

“It is not common here in Spain for someone to be shot with a lot of ammunition,” said Chief Pepe Álvarez of the Villajoyosa Police Department. “These are indications that point to organized crime, to a criminal organization, to professionals.”

While no evidence of direct Kremlin involvement has emerged, Russia had made no secret of its desire to see Mr. Kuzminov dead. Weeks after his defection, the Kremlin’s signature Sunday evening news program ran a segment quoting fellow pilots and commandos from Russia’s military intelligence service vowing revenge.

“We’ll find this person and punish him, with all the severity of our country’s laws, for treason and for betraying his brothers,” said one of the commandos, who was not identified. “We find everyone eventually. Our arms are long.”

The defection of Mr. Kuzminov was a coup for Ukraine, orchestrated by a covert unit in the HUR, Ukraine’s military’s intelligence arm. The unit specializes in recruiting Russian fighters and running agents on Russian territory to carry out sabotage missions. Some soldiers from the unit have received specialized training from the C.I.A. on operating in hostile environments.

Image

Fighting in Serebrianka Forest in Ukraine in February. Mr. Kuzminov’s defection was orchestrated by a unit in Ukraine’s military intelligence arm and a coup for the country.Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

While the unit had been able to persuade individual Russians and sometimes small groups of soldiers to defect, Mr. Kuzminov’s daring flight — and the high value of what he delivered — was unprecedented, said a senior Ukrainian official with knowledge of the operation.

The success of Ukraine’s efforts to recruit defectors is difficult to quantify. Thousands of Russian citizens have joined volunteer units fighting with the Ukrainian military and at times crossed into Russian territory for lightning raids on border outposts. It does not appear, however, that they have shifted the balance of power in any significant way.

Mr. Kuzminov said in interviews that he became disillusioned after reading postings by Ukrainians on the internet.

“I understood who was on the side of good and who was on the side of truth,” he said in an interview with a Ukrainian blogger.

In the early evening of Aug. 9, 2023, Mr. Kuzminov took off in a military helicopter from an airfield in the Kursk region in western Russia for what was supposed to be a simple cargo delivery to another base in the country. With him in the cockpit were a technician named Nikita Kiryanov and a navigator, Khushbakht Tursunov. Neither soldier appeared to be aware of Mr. Kuzminov’s plans.

Image

In a screen grab from a video released by the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine, officers inspect a Russian helicopter that they say was handed over by Mr. Kuzminov.Credit...Defense Intelligence of Ukraine/via Reuters

Shortly after takeoff, Mr. Kuzminov turned off the helicopter’s radio communications equipment and dove to an altitude of just under 20 feet to evade radar. Then he crossed into Ukraine.

In interviews with Ukrainian news media, Mr. Kuzminov was coy about what happened next. He said only that he had landed the helicopter at a prearranged rendezvous point in the Kharkiv region, just over 10 miles from the border, where he was met by HUR commandos.

“Everything went well,” he said in one interview.

The reality is more complicated. When he crossed into the country, Mr. Kuzminov surprised a group of Ukrainian fighters, who opened fire, according to another senior Ukrainian official. In the confusion, Mr. Kuzminov was shot in the leg.

What happened to his crewmates is less clear. A Russian television report about them, citing a medical examiner, claimed that the two had been shot and killed at close range and suggested that Mr. Kuzminov had killed them before landing. The senior Ukrainian official involved in the operation said this was not true.

“Our soldiers shot them,” the official said. “Otherwise they would have killed Kuzminov and could have escaped in that helicopter.”

In interviews, Mr. Kuzminov said his crewmates were unarmed but never explained how they died.

Image

Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, in Kyiv in 2022. After Mr. Kuzminov’s defection, the general said the operation would give confidence to other Russians who were considering doing the same. Credit...Laura Boushnak for The New York Times

The HUR clearly considered the mission a major success. Shortly afterward, Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, announced that the operation would give confidence to other Russian soldiers who were considering defection. The intelligence agency even produced a documentary film about the operation to showcase its triumph.

Mr. Kuzminov went on a media tour, holding a news conference, giving interviews denouncing Russia’s war and calling on others to follow his example.

“You won’t regret it,” he said in the documentary. “You’ll be taken care of for the rest of your life.”

The Ukrainian government paid Mr. Kuzminov $500,000 and provided him a Ukrainian passport and a fake name: Ihor Shevchenko. They also offered him a chance to join them in fighting Russia.

Instead, Mr. Kuzminov left Ukraine in October and drove to Villajoyosa, a small town on the Mediterranean coast popular with British and Eastern European tourists. There, he settled on the ninth floor of a modest apartment building about a 10-minute walk from the beach.

Image

The entrance to the parking garage in Villajoyosa where Mr. Kuzminov was killed.Credit...Johannes Simon/Getty Images

It was a curious choice for someone so explicitly targeted by the Russian authorities for liquidation. The region is a well-known base of operation for Russian organized crime figures, some of whom maintain ties to the country’s intelligence services, the Spanish authorities say.

In 2020, the Spanish police arrested more than 20 people connected to Russian criminal groups, some of whom were operating out of Alicante, in the same province as Villajoyosa. The people were charged with laundering millions of dollars acquired through drug and human trafficking, extortion and contract killings, the Spanish authorities said.

Another Russian military defector who has settled in Spain and spoke on the condition of anonymity for safety reasons called the region where Mr. Kuzminov settled “a red zone” filled with Russian agents. “I’ll never go there,” he said.

Image

Though he was struck by six bullets, Mr. Kuzminov managed to sprint a short distance before collapsing on the ramp of the parking garage.Credit...Eva Manez/Reuters

On the morning of Feb. 13, a white Hyundai Tucson entered the garage under Mr. Kuzminov’s apartment building and parked in an empty spot between the elevators used by residents and the ramp leading to the street. Two men waited there for several hours, according to the senior Guardia Civil official.

Around 4:20 p.m., Mr. Kuzminov drove into the garage, parked and began walking toward the elevators. As he passed in front of the white Hyundai, the two assailants emerged, called out to him and opened fire. Though he was struck by six bullets, most of them in the torso, Mr. Kuzminov managed to sprint a short distance before collapsing on the ramp.

The two killers got back into the car and ran over Mr. Kuzminov’s body on their way out. The vehicle was found a few miles away, burned with the help of what investigators believe was a special accelerant. It took specialists a week to identify the make and model of the car and establish that it had been stolen — two days before the killing — in Murcia, a town about an hour away.

A special unit in the Guardia Civil is carrying out the investigation under strict secrecy rules. The authorities have not publicly confirmed that Mr. Kuzminov was the person killed. They have struggled to reach officials in Ukraine who might help them.

But among the community of Russian and Ukrainian expatriates living in Villajoyosa, there was no question of who was behind the death.

Image

The vehicle used by Mr. Kuminov’s killers was found a few miles away, burned with the help of what investigators believe was a special accelerant. Credit...Alex Dominguez/Informacion.Es/Via Reuters

“Everyone thinks the services took him out,” said Ivan, 31, who fled his home city, Kherson, Ukraine, at the start of the war. “They’re everywhere.”

Spain’s annual report on national security threats, published this month, said Russia had revamped its intelligence operations in the country after the expulsion of 27 Russian diplomats over the war in Ukraine. Though fewer in number, the report said, Russian spies continued to seek out ways to “destabilize Spain’s support for NATO.”

In the past, Russian officials have twisted themselves into knots trying to obfuscate the Kremlin’s connection to various assassinations around Europe, often in the face of clear evidence of state involvement. Mr. Kuzminov’s case is different. Senior Russian officials spoke of his death with barely disguised glee.

“This traitor and criminal became a moral corpse the moment he planned his dirty and terrible crime,” said Sergei Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s foreign intelligence service.

Image

Sergei Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, center, in June at the Kremlin. He called Mr. Kuzminov a “traitor and criminal” and his defection a “dirty and terrible crime.”Credit...Egor Aleev/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Dmitri A. Medvedev, the former Russian president who is now the deputy chairman of the country’s security council, said, “A dog gets a dog’s death.”

In contrast with the great fanfare that accompanied Mr. Kuzminov’s defection, the Ukrainian authorities have been mostly quiet about the killing. Senior officials worry that it could dissuade others from following his example.

“Who will cooperate with us after this?” said one of the senior officials.

“Russia will intensively spread propaganda — they’re already doing it — that they will find all traitors,” he said. “This is a hidden message to other citizens of Russia, especially military personnel, that we will find you if you betray us.”

Michael Schwirtz is an investigative reporter with the International desk. With The Times since 2006, he previously covered the countries of the former Soviet Union from Moscow and was a lead reporter on a team that won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for articles about Russian intelligence operations. More about Michael Schwirtz

A version of this article appears in print on March 31, 2024, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: A Russian Defector, a Hit Squad And Signs of a Spy Ring in Spain. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

15. We Still Haven’t Figured Out How to Beat ISIS

Excerpts:

Either way, it’s unrealistic to expect the Taliban to be a reliable counterterrorism partner in an international effort to defeat ISIS-K. But some level of cooperation, however unappealing, is necessary. The human intelligence so critical in counterterrorism can only be gathered on the ground. With no American footprint left in the country, our counterterrorism interests would be better served with intelligence derived from Taliban security and intelligence operations directed against ISIS-K — a mutual enemy. The cooperation should remain limited to information sharing and should not extend to training or the provision of equipment.

Intelligence history is replete with examples of marriages of convenience between intelligence services for sharing threat information, even between adversarial countries. Although a “shadow war” has played out between Iran and the United States for decades, the United States still reportedly shared threat warnings on an impending terrorist attack with the Iranians in January. Washington did the same with Moscow two weeks before the ISIS-K attack on the concert hall.

Of course, coming to any kind of agreement with the Taliban is a deeply complicated and controversial endeavor. Even a highly restricted relationship with the Taliban would be distasteful and fraught with ethical dilemmas, given the regime’s human rights record.

But it’s been considered before. And the alternative is worse: a devastating attack directed at Americans overseas or at home.

We Still Haven’t Figured Out How to Beat ISIS

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/31/opinion/isis-russia-terrorism-attack.html

March 31, 2024, 9:00 a.m. ET

Credit...Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

Share full article

By Christopher P. Costa and Colin P. Clarke

Mr. Costa was the special assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 2017 to 2018. Mr. Clarke is the director of research at the Soufan Group.

Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Middle East? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

For all of the counterterrorism wins that the United States has had in its fight against the Islamic State — and there have been many — we still have not figured out how to defeat it.

A terrorist attack targeting a concert hall in the Russian capital of Moscow on March 22 killed more than 130 people and left many others severely wounded. It served as the latest deadly reminder that the Islamic State — and particularly its Khorasan branch, ISIS-K, which is active in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan — remains a potent threat. It’s a painful lesson Afghans and Americans alike learned in August 2021, when ISIS-K conducted a complex suicide operation that killed at least 170 Afghan civilians and 13 American service members in Kabul, in the midst of a chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Since the start of the new year, ISIS-K has launched lethal assaults in Iran and Turkey. Several ISIS-K plots in Europe have been disrupted, with arrests in Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands. On Tuesday, four days after the Moscow attack, the ISIS-affiliated al-Battar Media published a message threatening Italy, France, Spain and Britain: “Who’s next?” Both France and Italy have since raised their terror threat levels.

All of these events point to what we now know: Stripping the Islamic State of its self-proclaimed caliphate is not the same as beating it. At its peak, the caliphate was as large as the territory of Britain, stretching from the Levant to Southeast Asia, and boasted over 40,000 foreign fighters from more than 80 countries. Forced from this redoubt, ISIS has reconstituted itself in other countries, going underground in less detectable — but more dangerous — forms.

To stop that threat from reaching America and its allies, the United States must prevent two decades of counterterrorism expertise from atrophying. There are other serious threats that deserve Washington’s attention, including Chinese adventurism and the challenge of artificial intelligence. But to keep Americans safe, counterterrorism must remain a strategic priority — and that includes finding a way to keep eyes on the Islamic State in parts of the world where we no longer have a footprint.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

After the terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public was told to brace itself, that the war on terror would be a generational one. The United States made some profound blunders in the decades-long fight that followed, and eventually, Washington turned its national security focus to different geopolitical threats. But neither of those facts obviated the need to remain committed to countering transnational terrorism. By pulling back troops and intelligence assets from active conflict zones, the United States has allowed groups like ISIS-K to rebound. It’s not the time to let up, or predictably, we will find ourselves facing a resurgent adversary.

The Islamic State is nothing if not resilient. Aggressive Western military campaigns helped dismantle the caliphate and have in recent years severely curtailed the operations of ISIS militants in other countries, including the Philippines and Syria. Rather than disappear, they have gone on to rebrand, enlist new fighters under the same banner and plot new attacks. Some have reappeared in other countries, better trained and harder to find and protect against. Some are intent on committing acts of terrorism like those we’re witnessing now, traveling across borders to infiltrate target countries.

How did a jihadist group operating from a remote region of Afghanistan manage to expand its networks and begin planning external operations with such global reach?

Part of the answer is that we left. Before the United States withdrew, ISIS-K was far more constrained, particularly its ability to launch external attacks. In a 2020 agreement between the United States and the Taliban signed in Doha, Qatar, the Taliban agreed to prevent terrorist groups from using Afghan soil to threaten the United States and its allies. In return, Washington agreed to fully withdraw its forces from the country. The stipulation to prevent terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as an operating base was primarily relevant to the Taliban’s longstanding, cozy relationship with Al Qaeda. The Taliban and ISIS-K, on the other hand, are mortal enemies and have been fighting each other since ISIS-K started operating in the country in 2015, at the apex of the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate.

So while the Taliban, once in power, may have intended to combat ISIS-K and keep its militants in check, its success has been mixed at best. Taliban fighters were highly effective insurgents but are proving to be far less effective in their still new counterinsurgent and counterterrorist role. They have made modest progress in eliminating ISIS-K commanders and reclaiming some territory from the group, but Islamic State militants still operate along Afghanistan’s borders — and still retain the capacity for spectacular attacks.

Precisely because the Taliban has enjoyed some success in limiting ISIS-K’s attacks within Afghanistan, the group has deliberately focused its energy on an “internationalization” agenda, including shifting resources to build a robust external attack network. ISIS-K now maintains a vast network of extremists it can tap into, spread across volatile regions such as the Caucasus and Central Asia. Thousands of Central Asians have joined the Islamic State, with many Uzbeks and Tajiks holding leadership positions, especially in ISIS-K. Militants from Central Asia now form the backbone of ISIS-K’s external operations cadre. “In the past year, the Afghan affiliate has planned 21 external plots or attacks in nine countries, compared to eight plots or attacks in the previous year and just three between 2018 and March 2022,” notes a report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Put simply: The Taliban is unable to contain the ISIS-K threat alone. The time has probably passed for trying to unseat the Taliban by discreetly supporting Afghan opposition groups like the Panjshiris of the National Resistance Front, who oppose Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now it’s time for diplomacy. Washington and its allies could engage the Qataris or the Saudis to provide incentives for the Taliban to ramp up their pressure on ISIS-K, share intelligence and, perhaps in time, walk away from their past pledge to unconditionally support Al Qaeda and provide the group with safe haven. Maybe the Taliban has learned from Mullah Omar’s fateful refusal to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. Maybe not.

Either way, it’s unrealistic to expect the Taliban to be a reliable counterterrorism partner in an international effort to defeat ISIS-K. But some level of cooperation, however unappealing, is necessary. The human intelligence so critical in counterterrorism can only be gathered on the ground. With no American footprint left in the country, our counterterrorism interests would be better served with intelligence derived from Taliban security and intelligence operations directed against ISIS-K — a mutual enemy. The cooperation should remain limited to information sharing and should not extend to training or the provision of equipment.

Intelligence history is replete with examples of marriages of convenience between intelligence services for sharing threat information, even between adversarial countries. Although a “shadow war” has played out between Iran and the United States for decades, the United States still reportedly shared threat warnings on an impending terrorist attack with the Iranians in January. Washington did the same with Moscow two weeks before the ISIS-K attack on the concert hall.

Of course, coming to any kind of agreement with the Taliban is a deeply complicated and controversial endeavor. Even a highly restricted relationship with the Taliban would be distasteful and fraught with ethical dilemmas, given the regime’s human rights record.

But it’s been considered before. And the alternative is worse: a devastating attack directed at Americans overseas or at home.

More about the Islamic State

Opinion | Esther Niemeier

Retracing a Young Man’s Path to Extremism

Sept. 3, 2019

Opinion | Joshua A. Geltzer and Christopher P. Costa

The Dangers of Calling ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Syria

Dec. 19, 2018

Christopher P. Costa was a career intelligence officer and was the special assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 2017 to 2018. Colin P. Clarke is the director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm based in New York City.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.

16. This Is the World's Most Dangerous Country

I am not sure that this article is anything more than clickbait but it is interesting to see what they say about various countries and security threats.

This Is the World's Most Dangerous Country

247wallst.com · by Mike Edmisten · March 30, 2024

Travel

Natasa Adzic / Shutterstock.com

Mike Edmisten

Published: March 30, 2024 9:30 am

The world has always been a dangerous place, but we have never been more cognizant of it than we are today. The 24/7 news cycle ensures we are always aware of the dangers posed in different places all over the globe. These dangers are not one-dimensional and they are certainly not equally distributed in our world. Here is a look at the different threats facing tens of millions of people. These dangers are broken down into three distinct categories.

24/7 Wall St. used information from the International SOS travel risk map for this story. Population, geographical, and cultural information were sourced from The World Factbook published by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Security Threats

War and terrorism are major threats around the globe.

When we consider the dangers of our world, our first thoughts typically turn to military conflicts, terrorism, and other security threats. Every day, we see new reports of violence in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the fight between Israel and Hamas, the gang violence in Haiti, the civil war in Myanmar, and on and on.

Medical/Health Threats

Lack of medical care is a grave threat to hundreds of millions of people.

Security issues are not the only threats facing much of the world’s population, though. Rampant disease, the lack of proper sanitation, the absence of medical care, and little to no humanitarian aid claim many more lives than human violence in some parts of the world.

Threats From Climate Change

Some nations are under a greater threat from climate change than others.

The threat of climate change also looms larger in some parts of the world than in others. Extreme weather events, famine, and other disasters are rising in these nations.

International SOS, a health and security service firm, published a study detailing these three dangers worldwide. We have broken down the most dangerous countries in each category listed by International SOS. The countries in the individual categories are not ranked, but rather are arranged alphabetically. However, there is one nation that is considered by numerous authoritative private and government agencies as the single most dangerous nation on the planet. (On a similar note, here is a list of the ten most corrupt countries on Earth. Not surprisingly, there is some overlap between the most corrupt and the most dangerous nations in the world.)

Countries With the Highest Security Threats

A Ukrainian soldier is pictured here.

SOS International tagged these nine nations with the highest possible security threat level. Those nations are:

Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Iraq
Libya
Somalia
South Sudan
Syria
Ukraine
Yemen

While not quite at the highest risk level, countries that saw significant increases in security risks since the last report include Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Russia.

Countries With the Highest Medical Threats

Adequate medical care is severely lacking in Somalia.

Nations with the highest health and medical threats include:

Afghanistan
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Central African Republic
Eritrea
Haiti
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Iraq
Liberia
Libya
Niger
North Korea
Palestinian Territories
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Syria
Yemen

Countries Under the Highest Threats from Climate Change

Yemen is under a particularly dangerous threat from climate change.

The nations that face the most severe potential impacts of climate change include:

Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Chad
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Iraq
Mali
Mozambique
Niger
Nigeria
Somalia
South Sudan
Syria
Yemen

Countries With The Highest Combined Threats

Seven nations received the highest threat level for security, medical, and climate.

When an extreme lack of security, lack of access to medical care, and the highest risk from climate change all come together in one place, that location is quite literally one of the most dangerous places in the world. SOS International labeled seven nations with the highest threat level in all three categories. The security, health, and climate dangers in these seven nations cannot be overstated. Here is a list of those seven countries.

1. Afghanistan

The Taliban controls Afghanistan.

Population: 39,232,003
Total Area: 251,827 square miles
Religions: Muslim 99.7%, Other <0.3%
Government Type: Theocratic
Capital: Kabul

2. Central African Republic

The people of the Central African Republic often wait in long lines for healthcare, if it is available at all.

Population: 5,552,228
Total Area: 240,535 square miles
Religions: Christian 89%, Muslim 9%, Folk Religionist 1%, Unaffiliated 1%
Government Type: Presidential Republic
Capital: Bangui

3. Iraq

Iraq continues to be one of the most dangerous nations in the world.

Population: 41,266,109
Total Area: 169,235 square miles
Religions: Muslim 95-98%, Christian 1%, Other 1-4%
Government Type: Federal Parliamentary Republic
Capital: Baghdad

4. Somalia

Climate change is bringing devastating consequences to Somalia.

Population: 12,693,796
Total Area: 246,201 square miles
Religions: Muslim (percentages and other faith numbers are unavailable)
Government Type: Federal Parliamentary Republic
Capital: Mogadishu

5. South Sudan

The people of South Sudan are suffering from a lack of food and potable water, threats of violence, and more.

Population: 12,118,379
Total Area: 248,777 square miles
Religions: Christian 60.5%, Folk Religion 32.9%, Muslim 6.2%, Other <1%, Unaffiliated <1%
Government Type: Presidential Republic
Capital: Juba

6. Syria

The Syrian people have suffered more than most people in the rest of the world can even imagine.

Population: 22,933,531
Total Area: 72,370 square miles
Religions: Muslim 87%, Christian 10%, Druze 3%
Government Type: Presidential Republic; Highly Authoritative Regime
Capital: Damascus

7. Yemen

Yemen has been embroiled in a civil war since 2014.

Population: 31,565,602
Total Area: 203,850 square miles
Religions: Muslim 99.1%, Other 0.9%
Government Type: In Transition
Capital: Sanaa

The World’s Most Dangerous Country

Taliban rule has made Afghanistan an even more dangerous place.

Out of these seven nations, one tops the list as the most dangerous nation on Earth: Afghanistan.

The desert climate can be quite dangerous. Jalalabad regularly sees summer temperatures above 110°F. Climate change threatens to send these scorching temperatures even higher.

Afghanistan is a consistent leader in deaths from armed conflict and terrorism. When the U.S. and NATO forces withdrew in 2021, the situation in Afghanistan became even more dire. With the Taliban in control, threats to women have skyrocketed. Religious persecution has intensified.

It is estimated that more than 90% of Afghans are impoverished. Access to medical care is practically non-existent in much of the war-torn country. Afghanistan is experiencing a humanitarian crisis on every imaginable level.

U.S. State Department Warnings Regarding Afghanistan

The U.S. State Department does not mince words in its warnings to Americans about travel to Afghanistan.

The U.S. State Department has issued a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory regarding Afghanistan, which is the highest threat level the department can assign. The State Department lists terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping, and crime as the biggest threats to a U.S. citizen who may venture to Afghanistan.

The State Department warns the U.S. Embassy in Kabul has suspended operations, meaning the U.S. government cannot provide any emergency emergency consular services to American citizens in Afghanistan.

Because multiple terrorist groups are operating in Afghanistan, the risk of wrongful detention is high. These groups have kidnapped and detained U.S. citizens and international aid workers.

Should a U.S. citizen choose to ignore this travel advisory and venture to Afghanistan anyway, the State Department provides some pretty ominous advice, including:

Draft a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.
Discuss a plan with loved ones regarding care/custody of children, pets, property, belongings, non-liquid assets (collections, artwork, etc.), funeral wishes, etc.
Leave DNA samples with your medical provider in case it is necessary for your family to access them.

In case someone may still misunderstand the message, the State Department sums it up in one sentence: “U.S. citizens should not travel to Afghanistan for any reason.”

Essential Tips for Investing: Sponsored

A financial advisor can help you understand the advantages and disadvantages of investment properties. Finding a qualified financial advisor doesn’t have to be hard. SmartAsset’s free tool matches you with up to three financial advisors who serve your area, and you can interview your advisor matches at no cost to decide which one is right for you. If you’re ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

Investing in real estate can diversify your portfolio. But expanding your horizons may add additional costs. If you’re an investor looking to minimize expenses, consider checking out online brokerages. They often offer low investment fees, helping you maximize your profit.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?

Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.

247wallst.com · by Mike Edmisten · March 30, 2024

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website