Quotes of the Day:

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." 

- Leonardo da Vinci

"The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he's in prison."

- Fyodor Dostoevsky

"I have come to believe that a great teacher is a great artist and that there are as few as there are any other great artists. Teaching might even be the greatest of the arts since the medium is the human mind and spirit."

- John Steinbeck, “On Teaching”

1. TikTok’s New Defense in Washington: Going on the Offense

2. Satellite images hint at scale of Russian mercenary group's losses in Ukraine

3. Wi-Fi signals could prove useful for spies

4. To refill Army stockpiles, multi-year munition buys are 'in the works': Official

5. Chinese Nuclear and Missile Proliferation (CRS Report)

6. Will the U.S. Really Defend Taiwan?

7. Russia calls German tanks in Ukraine a new war against 'Nazi' Germany

8. Kennan's Warning on Ukraine

9. China could shut down our military in a minute if we don't fix the looming rare earths supply crisis

10. Japan’s Strategic Shift Is Significant, but Implementation Hurdles Await

11. New U.S. Base on Guam Is Aimed at Deterring China

12. Marine Corps Activates Sprawling New Base On Highly Strategic Guam

13. Why Do Officials Filch Classified Documents?

14. Ukraine Corruption Scandal Stokes Longstanding Aid Concerns in U.S.

15. A Medal of Honor Recipient's Speech at the Pentagon Is Going Viral on TikTok

16. Biden's promise to send 31 Abrams could take up to a YEAR

17. Could the U.S. Military Run Out of Artillery Ammo Due to Ukraine War?

18. The Army is readying a new directed energy weapon to swat drone swarms out of the sky

19. Wagner Group: Putin's Mercenaries in Ukraine Are Monsters

1. TikTok’s New Defense in Washington: Going on the Offense

Excerpts:

Representatives Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican, and Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, who are co-sponsors of the bill in Congress to ban TikTok, said they planned to meet with the company soon.

But Mr. Krishnamoorthi made it clear that he would not be easily persuaded to change his position. He said in an interview that TikTok was “taking a more aggressive stance in Washington,” but that the company had yet to meaningfully address some of his concerns, such as how it would respond to a Chinese media law that allowed the government to secretly demand data from Chinese companies and citizens.

Mr. Gallagher said he wanted more information from CFIUS about ByteDance’s proposed ownership structure. “I come in somewhat skeptical — I prefer a ban or a forced sale, but I’m more than willing to do my due diligence in examining the technical aspects of such an arrangement,” he said. And even then, he said, “where we have a lot of unanswered questions” is around how its recommendation system works.

Mr. Gallagher said new questions kept popping up as well. He pointed to reports about ByteDance tracking journalists, and Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, struggling in a recent CNN interview to answer questions about China’s treatment of Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.

“What we’ve seen is a steady drip of negative information that calls into question what they’ve said publicly,” Mr. Gallagher said. “When I see things like that, what am I left to conclude other than ByteDance and TikTok are afraid of offending their overlords in Beijing? It does not reassure people like me.”

TikTok’s New Defense in Washington: Going on the Offense

The New York Times · by David McCabe · January 26, 2023

Keeping its head down has not paid off for the company, which now faces regulatory pressure on many fronts. So it is starting to speak out.

• Send any friend a story
• As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew in the ByteDance office in Singapore on Wednesday.Credit...Ore Huiying for The New York Times

Jan. 26, 2023Updated 3:48 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Last week, TikTok’s chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, met with several influential think tanks and public interest groups in Washington, sharing details on how his company plans to prevent data on American users from ever leaving the United States. And the company’s lobbyists swarmed the offices of lawmakers who have introduced bills to ban the app, telling them that TikTok can be trusted to protect the information.

TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app, has been in the cross-hairs of American regulators for years now, with both the Trump and Biden administrations weighing how to ensure that information about Americans who use the service doesn’t land in the hands of Beijing officials.

Through it all, the company has maintained a low profile in Washington, keeping its confidential interactions with government officials under wraps and eschewing more typical lobbying tactics.

But as talks with the Biden administration drag on, pressure on the company has arrived in waves from elsewhere. Congress, state lawmakers, college campuses and cities have adopted or considered rules to outlaw the app.

Now, TikTok is upending its strategy for how to deal with U.S. officials. The new game plan: Step out of the shadows.

“We have shifted our approach,” said Erich Andersen, general counsel of ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok. He said that the company had been “heads down” in private conversations with a committee led by the Biden administration to review foreign investments in businesses in the United States, but that then the government put the negotiations “on pause.”

“What we learned, unfortunately the hard way, this fall was it was necessary for us to accelerate our own explanation of what we were prepared to do and the level of commitments on the national security process,” Mr. Andersen said.

TikTok is at the center of a geopolitical and economic battle between the United States and China over tech leadership and national security. The outcome of TikTok’s negotiations with the U.S. government could have broad implications for technology and internet companies, shaping how freely digital data flows between countries.

For two years, TikTok has been in confidential talks with the administration’s review panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, to address questions about ByteDance’s relationship with the Chinese government and whether that link could put the sensitive data of 100 million U.S. users into the hands of Beijing officials. The company assumed that those talks would reach a resolution soon after it submitted a 90-page proposal to the administration in August.

Under the proposal, called Project Texas, TikTok would remain owned by ByteDance. But it would take a number of steps that it said would prevent the Chinese government from having access to data on U.S. users and offer the U.S. government oversight of the platform. Some of those steps have been put in place since October.

TikTok has proposed putting all U.S. user data into domestic servers owned and operated by Oracle, the American software giant.

The company has proposed putting all U.S. user data into domestic servers owned and operated by Oracle, the American software giant. The data would not be allowed to be transferred outside the United States, nor would it be accessible to ByteDance or TikTok employees outside the country.

The program proposes having CFIUS conduct regular audits of the new data system and creating a new unit, TikTok U.S. Data Security, with 2,500 engineers, security experts, and trust and safety officials, all based in the United States, who have access to TikTok’s U.S. user data for business functions. The unit would report to a three-member board assigned by CFIUS. In addition, TikTok’s source code, which offers insight into why certain videos are shown in users’ feeds, would be reviewed by Oracle and a third-party inspector.

Some details of the proposal were reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

“We knew that, in order to earn trust, we would have to build a system that provided an unprecedented level of security and transparency — that’s what we’ve done and will continue to do,” Mr. Chew said in an interview.

The proposal, though, has yielded little response from the panel, Mr. Andersen said. TikTok said it had asked about the status of the panel’s review in numerous emails and received little response. The company’s officials learn about the administration’s thinking on the proposal only through news coverage, they said.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department, the lead agency of CFIUS, said the panel was “committed to taking all necessary actions within its authority to safeguard U.S. national security.” She declined to comment about TikTok’s depiction of the negotiations, saying the panel doesn’t comment on cases it may or may not be reviewing.

TikTok’s more aggressive lobbying stance will not necessarily yield different results. The company has few allies in Washington. The most powerful tech lobbying groups, like the Chamber of Progress and TechNet, prefer to represent American companies and have policies against representing Chinese companies. In fact, many big tech companies, like Meta, have argued that TikTok poses a security threat.

And lawmakers in both parties have expressed concern. Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, has said that the company has misrepresented how it protects U.S. data from Chinese-based employees, and that he is considering a bill to outlaw the app in the United States.

On Tuesday, Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, introduced a bill to ban the app for all American users after successfully passing a bill in December that banned the app on all devices issued by the federal government.

“A halfway solution is no solution at all,” said Mr. Hawley, who is among a growing number of lawmakers who don’t see a compromise on data storage and access as a solution to TikTok’s security risks.

Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill to ban TikTok for all American users.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

Yet the growing pressure on the company has left it few options other than changing its approach, many outside experts say.

“The issue has become public in a way that they can’t ignore,” said Graham Webster, the editor in chief of the DigiChina Project at the Stanford University Cyber Policy Center. “And this may be their way of pushing to actually get the CFIUS agreement completed, which is really their best chance of a sustainable business path in the United States.”

In a 24-hour visit to Washington last week, Mr. Chew held four back-to-back 90-minute meetings with think tanks like New America, academics and public interest groups such as Public Knowledge. In the company’s temporary WeWork suites near Capitol Hill, Mr. Chew and Mr. Andersen outlined the promises in Project Texas in a presentation with graphics on how the data is stored in Oracle’s cloud and TikTok’s appointment of a content moderation board and auditors.

They told the groups that the company rebuked allegations that China interferes in the business, but that they had built the system to prove their commitment to security, according to people at the meetings.

“It seemed like a serious effort,” said Matt Perault, the director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina, who attended a briefing and whose center receives funding from TikTok.

He added that the company appeared to be trying to shift the discussion about it from hypothetical risks to operational and technical solutions. TikTok would spend $1.5 billion to set up its proposed plan and then as much as $1 billion a year. U.S. users may have a slightly worse experience with the app outside the country, a cost of operating from Oracle’s servers, the company executives said.

Mr. Perault said even with those efforts, “they can’t make something zero risk.”

“There is no way they can guarantee data won’t go to an adversary in some way,” he said.

As part of its more aggressive public relations offensive, TikTok has invited journalists to Los Angeles this month for a first-time tour of what it calls its “transparency and accountability center,” a physical space where it shows how humans and technology moderate videos on the platform.

The ByteDance office in Singapore on Wednesday.Credit...Ore Huiying for The New York Times

In recent days, TikTok and ByteDance have posted half a dozen communications and policy job openings in Washington. The new jobs would add to the 40 lobbyists whom the companies now have on contract or as employees. Those lobbyists include four former members of Congress, such as Trent Lott, the former Republican Senate majority leader, and John Breaux, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana. The companies have also recently posted job openings for roles doing strategic communications and policy for engagement with state and federal officials.

ByteDance spent $4.2 million in federal lobbying in the first three quarters of 2022 and is expected to far outpace that figure this year.

A spokeswoman for TikTok said the company’s lobbyists had a hard time scheduling meetings with lawmakers who were critical of the company in TV appearances.

Representatives Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican, and Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, who are co-sponsors of the bill in Congress to ban TikTok, said they planned to meet with the company soon.

But Mr. Krishnamoorthi made it clear that he would not be easily persuaded to change his position. He said in an interview that TikTok was “taking a more aggressive stance in Washington,” but that the company had yet to meaningfully address some of his concerns, such as how it would respond to a Chinese media law that allowed the government to secretly demand data from Chinese companies and citizens.

Mr. Gallagher said he wanted more information from CFIUS about ByteDance’s proposed ownership structure. “I come in somewhat skeptical — I prefer a ban or a forced sale, but I’m more than willing to do my due diligence in examining the technical aspects of such an arrangement,” he said. And even then, he said, “where we have a lot of unanswered questions” is around how its recommendation system works.

Mr. Gallagher said new questions kept popping up as well. He pointed to reports about ByteDance tracking journalists, and Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, struggling in a recent CNN interview to answer questions about China’s treatment of Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.

“What we’ve seen is a steady drip of negative information that calls into question what they’ve said publicly,” Mr. Gallagher said. “When I see things like that, what am I left to conclude other than ByteDance and TikTok are afraid of offending their overlords in Beijing? It does not reassure people like me.”

Cecilia Kang and David McCabe reported from Washington, and Sapna Maheshwari from New York.

The New York Times · by David McCabe · January 26, 2023

2. Satellite images hint at scale of Russian mercenary group's losses in Ukraine

Images at the link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/satellite-images-hint-scale-russian-mercenary-groups-losses-ukraine-rcna67373

Satellite images hint at scale of Russian mercenary group's losses in Ukraine

Aerial photos of a cemetery on the outskirts of the Russian village of Bakinskaya suggest a sevenfold increase in the number of graves in just two months.

NBC News · by Aina J. Khan and Matthew Mulligan

The number of graves at a cemetery used by Russia's notorious mercenary Wagner Group has dramatically grown over the last two months, satellite images show.

A photograph taken on Jan. 24 by Maxar Technologies, a U.S. defense contractor headquartered in Colorado, shows at least 121 burial plots in a section of the cemetery allotted to fighters from the private military company.

An image of the same area taken on Nov. 24 appears to show around 17 graves, suggesting that in two months there has been around a sevenfold increase, according to an NBC News analysis of the site on the outskirts of the village of Bakinskaya, in southwestern Russia.

The apparent expansion at the site, which is situated around 200 miles from the border with Crimea, comes after Wagner Group fighters were belatedly credited earlier this month by Russia's defense ministry with taking the town of Soledar in eastern Ukraine, which saw some of the war’s most intense combat.

Satellite images show an increase in the number of graves at a cemetery in Bakinskaya, Russia, from Nov. 24 to Jan. 24.Satellite image ©2023 Maxar Technologies

Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group, said troops from his irregular private army had taken the salt-mining town two days before the official announcement. He later griped that the Russian military was “constantly trying to steal Wagner’s victory.”

Prigozhin, a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and former restaurateur, has recruited former prisoners as soldiers for hire in Russia’s war on Ukraine, promising bounties and pardons in exchange for service. The Wagner Group previously provided assistance to the Russian military during conflicts in Syria and Libya.

Acknowledging Soledar's fall for the first time on Wednesday, Serhii Cherevatyi, a spokesman for Ukraine's forces in the east, said his country's troops had now moved away from the town to previously prepared defense lines, “in order to preserve the lives of the personnel.”

He added that added Ukraine had inflicted “huge losses” on Russian soldiers comparable to “the losses of the aggressor in the two Chechen wars.”

NBC News could not independently verify this claim.

A cemetery for mercenaries with the PMC Wagner Group in Baku, Russia.Protokol / Telegram

Two weeks ago, similar aerial photos taken around the nearby city of Bakhmut revealed the devastation of ruined buildings and bomb craters in the strategically significant city, by comparing the same areas pictured in August and then again in January. These images were also released by Maxar Technologies.

The U.S. government said last week that it will designate Wagner Group as a “significant transnational criminal organization” and impose further sanctions against the organization and its support network.

The Wagner Group did not comment on the satellite images and video.

CORRECTION (Jan. 26, 2023, 12:33 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misspelled the name of the village where the cemetery is located in the text and in a caption. It is Bakinskaya, not Bakinskayat or Baku.

NBC News · by Aina J. Khan and Matthew Mulligan

3. Wi-Fi signals could prove useful for spies

It is hard for us old people (digital aliens) to grasp these capabilities. On the other hand, our young people (digital natives) also do not trust these threat assessments. They do not see how this can be used against them

Wi-Fi signals could prove useful for spies

A router’s emissions can paint a picture of activity in a room

The Economist

Jan 25th 2023

Like all radio waves, Wi-Fi signals undergo subtle shifts when they encounter objects—human beings included. These can reveal information about the shape and motion of what has been encountered, in a manner akin to the way a bat’s chirps reveal obstacles and prey.

Starting from this premise Jiaqi Geng, Dong Huang and Fernando De la Torre, of Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, wondered if they could use Wi-Fi to record the behaviour of people inside otherwise unobservable rooms. As they describe in a posting on arXiv, they have found that they can. “DensePose from Wi-Fi”, the paper in question, describes how they ran Wi-Fi signals from a room with appropriate routers in it through an artificial-intelligence algorithm trained on signals from people engaging in various, known activities. This algorithm was able to reconstruct moving digital portraits, called pose estimations, of the individuals in the room.

Mr Geng, Dr Huang and Dr De la Torre are not the first to think of doing this. But they seem to have made a significant advance. Earlier experiments had managed to obtain two-dimensional (2D) pose estimations based on as many as 17 “vector points” on the body—such as head, chest, knees, elbows and hands. The new paper, by contrast, describes “2.5D” portraits that track 24 vector points (see picture). And, according Dr Huang, the team has now built an enhanced version capable of generating complete 3D body reconstructions that track thousands of vector points. Moreover, this work employed standard antennas of the sort used in household Wi-Fi routers. Previous efforts have relied on souped-up versions of the equipment.

Detailed Wi-Fi-based body-tracking with a standard-issue router would have many uses. Mr Geng, Dr Huang and Dr De la Torre talk of employing it to “monitor the well-being of elder people”. A team working on similar technology, led by Yili Ren of Florida State University, suggests it could be used in interactive gaming and exercise monitoring. And, in 2016, Dina Katabi, Mingmin Zhao and Fadel Adib of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrated how Wi-Fi-like radio signals could detect a volunteer’s heartbeat (and thus his or her emotional state) remotely.

These ideas are, however, distractions from what any such system would almost certainly be used for to start with, namely surveillance and espionage. In 2018, for example, Yanzi Zhu of the University of California, Santa Barbara and his colleagues showed how hackers posted outside someone’s home could track the movements (though not then visualise the postures) of people inside, by intercepting escaping Wi-Fi signals.

It is easy to imagine who might be interested in the ability to turn any building’s Wi-Fi network into a mini panopticon. Dr Huang declined to say who is sponsoring his team’s work. However, another of their projects—developing techniques for detecting specific human behaviours in video-surveillance footage—is paid for by IARPA, the research hub of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees America’s spies. ■

Curious about the world? To enjoy our mind-expanding science coverage, sign up to Simply Science, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.

This article appeared in the Science & technology section of the print edition under the headline "I spy, with my little Wi-Fi"

From the January 28th 2023 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Reuse this content

The Economist

4. To refill Army stockpiles, multi-year munition buys are 'in the works': Official

America's super power is that we can outproduce any adversary (and project power around the world). We need to ensure we sustain that power.

To refill Army stockpiles, multi-year munition buys are 'in the works': Official - Breaking Defense

breakingdefense.com · by Ashley Roque · January 26, 2023

A PAC-3 Cost Reduction Initiative (CRI) missile is launched during a test at White Sands Missile Range. (US Army)

WASHINGTON — Army plans to refill its dwindling munitions stockpile will ramp up over the coming months when it inks several new, multi-year production contracts with the new authority granted by Congress, according to a top Army official.

Service acquisition officials have traditionally reserved the use of multi-year production contracts for larger ship and aircraft programs, but lawmakers moved to expand this power to include ammunition and launcher lines in the fiscal 2023 authorization and appropriations bills. Assistant Secretary of the US Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology Douglas Bush told reporters on Wednesday he is now working with companies to iron out those deals and new contracts will likely be inked in a February and March timeframe.

“We haven’t yet awarded one [with] that new authority but quite a few are in the works… mostly in the munitions area,” he said, noting that contracts above the $500 million threshold will still require appropriators’ approval. “That’ll be part of the conversation this year.”

Bush did not specify which lines will receive new contracts but said the Army is looking at munitions for the Patriot launcher (possibly Lockheed Martin’s PAC–3 Missile Segment Enhancement weapons) and for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher that fires Lockheed’s Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) and Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles. Lawmakers included those munitions on their approved multi-year buy list, along with XM1128, XM1113, M107, M795 (155mm rounds) and many more.

To date the Pentagon has promised Ukraine more than 1 million 155mm rounds for its ground forces to launch from howitzers. Bush said the Army is continuing to craft a plan to replenish its 155mm stockpile — an effort that includes acquiring the metal shell, explosives, fuse and charge. Once those different components are acquired, most of the production work is conducted at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. The service is now looking for ways to expand the plant’s capacity and “stand up additional capability in the private sector,” Bush explained.

While having the authority to issue such multi-year ammunition production contracts may provide industry with a certain level of stability, it is only one part of the equation. It still remains unclear if industry can meet the growing demand. The Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report this month titled, “Empty Bins in a Wartime Environment: The Challenge to the US Defense Industrial Base.” In it, the authors cite several challenges with US munition production lines that range from defense companies “generally unwilling” to take financial risks without contracts to workforce and supply chain constraints to challenges with long-lead items.

“Supply chains for the US defense sector are also not as secure as they should be, with some businesses shutting down or moving supply chains overseas to unfriendly countries,” the CSIS report said. It also cites problems with single-source production of key components and subcomponents as a critical hurdle.

“The Javelin, for instance, relies on a rocket motor — Aerojet Rocketdyne’s advance solid-propellant rocket motor — without a second source at the moment. There is one company, Williams International, that builds turbofan engines for most cruise missiles, such as the JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), JASSM-ER, and LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile),” the report adds.

Bush did not specifically discuss these three lines but said the services are working to address single-source component concerns and, “in some cases,” is already making changes.

“Having two suppliers sometimes is less efficient than having just one, but it has other benefits, such as redundancy and backup in case something goes wrong,” he said.

Ahead of the new contracts, Bush said the Army is also working with industry to decrease some of the long lead-times with components and finding a work around.

“An entire missile, for example, might not take 18 months to produce,” he said. “It might be really just one component that takes 14 of those 18 months.”

5. Chinese Nuclear and Missile Proliferation (CRS Report)

You can download the 3 page PDF at this link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11737

Chinese Nuclear and Missile Proliferation

Updated January 23, 2023

The U.S. government has continued to express concerns about China’s record concerning the proliferation of nuclear- and missile-related technologies to other countries, with more recent focus on the threat of Chinese acquisition of U.S.-origin nuclear technology. (See CRS In Focus IF11050, New U.S. Policy Regarding Nuclear Exports to China, by Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth D. Nikitin.) Official U.S. government reports indicate that the Chinese government has apparently ended its direct involvement in the transfer of nuclear- and missile-related items, but Chinese-based companies and individuals continue to export goods relevant to those items, particularly to Iran and North Korea. U.S. officials have also raised concerns about entities operating in China that provide other forms of support for proliferation-sensitive activities, such as illicit finance and money laundering. 

6. Will the U.S. Really Defend Taiwan?

Excerpts:

Despite these missteps, the Biden foreign-policy team deserves credit for undertaking the slogging work of alliance management. Yet the central reason that China feels emboldened to pressure Taiwan and challenge the U.S. is a shift in the military balance. Until the early 2010s, an attack on Taiwan that triggered a U.S. military response would have been suicidal for Beijing, and would have been a close-run proposition even if the U.S. stayed out. Today the U.S. still holds the upper hand, but only by a little. A Chinese first strike is imaginable where it hadn’t been previously.

In their best light, Mr. Biden’s explicit commitments to Taiwan may defer a confrontation for several years, giving the U.S. valuable time to expand its military-technological capabilities. But this doesn’t explain the lack of actual investment in American military capacity, namely in the defense industrial base and its current ability to increase production. It took the U.S. six years to revamp its defense industrial base before World War II. There is no sign that the Biden administration is preparing to undertake a Roosevelt-Vinson style defense expansion. What investments it is making don’t expand shipbuilding capacity or ensure missile stockpiles remain high.

There is a danger that the Biden administration is simply deluded. Because it is misreading the military fundamentals of Taiwan’s defense, it may not deter China in the short term. More dangerous, however, is the view that Sino-American competition is primarily economic and technological. That gives Taiwan little incentive to fight. An America that no longer needs Taiwanese semiconductors can abandon its old friend, perhaps not in 2024 or 2026, but sometime during the next Democratic administration.

It is Congress’s responsibility to ensure that U.S. policy doesn’t endorse chimerical dreams of deferred competition and economic rivalry without a superior military.

Will the U.S. Really Defend Taiwan?

Washington is strategically unprepared for a crisis and Biden’s policies are hampering deterrence.

By Seth Cropsey

Jan. 26, 2023 5:39 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-the-us-really-defend-taiwan-ambiguity-china-military-tech-defense-budget-congress-semiconductors-11674765405?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Taiwan’s ruling party has a new leader, and the change bodes ill for peace in the Indo-Pacific. Vice President Lai Ching-te, a staunch proponent of the island’s independence, took over chairmanship of the Democratic Progressive Party last week from President Tsai Ing-wen. She stepped down as party leader after the party suffered losses in recent local elections. China will now almost certainly seek to meddle in Taiwan’s 2024 election in an attempt to keep Mr. Lai from winning the presidency. If he does win, Beijing could move quickly to invade.

The U.S. is unprepared for such a crisis. President Biden broke decades of American precedent by stating twice in 2022 that the U.S. would intervene to defend Taiwan if China attacked. Usually Washington has preferred to keep the U.S. security guarantee somewhat vague. On the other hand, no American president has explicitly refused to defend Taiwan, either.

The root of U.S. reluctance to commit formally to the island republic’s defense is the complex diplomatic arrangement that governs Taiwan’s functional sovereignty. The Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, still the foundational document for Sino-American relations, allowed Washington and Beijing to disagree over Taiwan’s status as leaders in the U.S. and China got to know each other. While Beijing’s interpretation of the communiqué argues that the U.S. accepted the People’s Republic of China’s claim to Taiwan, the agreement’s text simply recognizes that, in legal terms, Taiwan and China are both part of “one China.” It thereby endorses the de jure fiction of Chinese control of Taipei while maintaining de facto Taiwanese independence.

Mr. Biden’s remarks caused a stir because a formal U.S. commitment to defend Taiwan would fundamentally violate the Chinese interpretation of the Shanghai Communiqué. American credibility is now on the line, which in theory should strengthen deterrence. China will be significantly less likely to move on Taiwan if doing so means it will have to fight the U.S. as well as the Taiwanese.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.

Preview

Subscribe

But other Biden administration policies complicate the deterrent effect of the president’s remarks. Washington looks to be playing for time—not time to rearm and prepare for a fight, but to reduce Taiwan’s importance to the U.S.

Taiwan’s economy is centered on semiconductor manufacturing. In July Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo called America’s dependence on Taiwanese chips “untenable and unsafe.” Congress passed the Chips Act to increase investment in the domestic semiconductor industry. If the U.S. is soon going to make all its own semiconductors, China may conclude that Washington will soon lose its appetite for defending Taiwan.

The Biden administration’s approach to military investments is also sending China mixed signals. Defense spending increased this fiscal year, but only because of congressional pressure. As initially proposed, the Biden defense budget would’ve seen a top-line cut. From this China is likely to conclude that the U.S. views Sino-American competition as economic and political, not military, at least in the short term. This is the only rational explanation for actively limiting the size of the U.S. military and plowing money into a broad-based industrial program full of green-energy moon shots and boondoggles.

Despite these missteps, the Biden foreign-policy team deserves credit for undertaking the slogging work of alliance management. Yet the central reason that China feels emboldened to pressure Taiwan and challenge the U.S. is a shift in the military balance. Until the early 2010s, an attack on Taiwan that triggered a U.S. military response would have been suicidal for Beijing, and would have been a close-run proposition even if the U.S. stayed out. Today the U.S. still holds the upper hand, but only by a little. A Chinese first strike is imaginable where it hadn’t been previously.

In their best light, Mr. Biden’s explicit commitments to Taiwan may defer a confrontation for several years, giving the U.S. valuable time to expand its military-technological capabilities. But this doesn’t explain the lack of actual investment in American military capacity, namely in the defense industrial base and its current ability to increase production. It took the U.S. six years to revamp its defense industrial base before World War II. There is no sign that the Biden administration is preparing to undertake a Roosevelt-Vinson style defense expansion. What investments it is making don’t expand shipbuilding capacity or ensure missile stockpiles remain high.

There is a danger that the Biden administration is simply deluded. Because it is misreading the military fundamentals of Taiwan’s defense, it may not deter China in the short term. More dangerous, however, is the view that Sino-American competition is primarily economic and technological. That gives Taiwan little incentive to fight. An America that no longer needs Taiwanese semiconductors can abandon its old friend, perhaps not in 2024 or 2026, but sometime during the next Democratic administration.

It is Congress’s responsibility to ensure that U.S. policy doesn’t endorse chimerical dreams of deferred competition and economic rivalry without a superior military.

Mr. Cropsey is founder and president of the Yorktown Institute. He served as a naval officer and as deputy undersecretary of the Navy and is author of “Mayday” and “Seablindness.”

7. Russia calls German tanks in Ukraine a new war against 'Nazi' Germany

Russia calls German tanks in Ukraine a new war against 'Nazi' Germany

News of the tank deployments sparks an ugly wave of propaganda from Moscow.

Tom Nagorski

Global Editor

January 26, 2023

grid.news · by Tom Nagorski

When the news came that German and American tanks would be headed to Ukraine, Russia responded in a variety of ways. The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the deployment a “losing scheme” and said the tanks would “go up in flames.” Russian lawmakers and diplomats reacted with a mix of defiance (the tanks won’t hurt us) to warnings (the Russian ambassador to Germany issued a statement calling Berlin’s decision “highly dangerous”; its envoy to the U.S. called it “a blatant provocation”). For its part, the Russian military launched heavy strikes Thursday against much of Ukraine, including the capital, Kyiv — though it’s unclear whether the fusillade was a direct response to the decision to send the tanks.

There was one other Russian response and a different kind of fusillade — the verbal variety — which came via Russian television and online media: The deployments meant a new war against “Nazi” Germany.

“If Germans supply tanks to Ukraine, let them not paint over the swastikas and [Nazi] crosses. What is there to be ashamed of?”

This was Margarita Simonyan, perhaps the most popular of Kremlin propagandists and chief executive of Russia Today, posting to her Telegram channel in the hours following the announcement. Others recalled the bravery of their ancestors and said that Germany would now meet the fate that Adolf Hitler’s Reich did eight decades ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

In other words, although the announcement involved German tanks owned by a half dozen different countries — and the American Abrams tank as well — the Russian commentators weren’t talking about NATO or Europe or the United States; this was Germany. And if any Russians needed the reminder, this was the nation that invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 and the army that the Soviets vanquished in what is still known in Russia as “the Great Patriotic War.” The chief Kremlin propagandists were painting this as utterly different from previous deployments of HIMARS rocket launchers or Javelin anti-tank weapons or anything else — different not because of the tanks’ firepower but because of their country of origin.

In their telling, the meaning of this week’s announcement was clear: The Russians are fighting the Germans again.

Fight them like your grandfathers did

From the moment the news broke, the tank deployment story has dominated Russian media platforms.

“It’s everywhere,” said Stanislav Kucher, a former Russian TV presenter and now a special contributor for Grid. “It’s breaking news and special reports on Russian television channels. It’s all over Russian YouTube. It’s literally everywhere.”

And on many of these platforms, the German connection was front and center.

ADVERTISEMENT

“So, for the first time since the Great Patriotic War, German tanks will be thrown against our army,” said Viktor Baranets, the military analyst for Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia’s most popular daily newspaper. “I even wonder if they will cover the [Nazi] crosses on them?”

There were frequent references to the powerful Tiger and Panther tanks used by Germany during World War II. Baranets questioned whether “the descendant of Hitler’s ‘Tiger’ [is] so terrible,” referring to the tanks that he said “our grandfathers burned well on the fields of the Great Patriotic War.”

Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev hammered home the point. “Modern Leopard 2 tanks sent to Ukraine will be destroyed like the Tiger and Panther tanks during the Great Patriotic War,” the Russian agency TASS quoted him as saying.

Another outlet used its headline as a call to battle. “Hit Leopard as your grandfather hit Tiger and Panther!”

And on it went, a parade of references to the Third Reich and the war that ended it. The most vile example of this Nazi narrative came from Simonyan, the Russia Today chief.

“After flogging from Washington, Germany will send 14 tanks to Ukraine,” she wrote. “Closer to summer, deliveries of gas chambers are also expected.”

It would be tempting to dismiss such a remark — or ignore it entirely — were it not for this fact: Simonyan is an influential as any of the self-styled Russian “patriots” who traffic in Kremlin propaganda. Among other things, her Telegram channel — where she was posting these messages — has more than 500,000 followers. And that’s not counting her influence as the woman in charge of the state-controlled Russia Today.

Will Russians buy the message?

There are already signs that the messages from Simonyan and like-minded voices on Russia media are trickling down to the Russian public.

Kucher said his own social media feeds are filled with comments about Germany — Hitler’s Germany — and an assumed parallel to the latest news.

A former high school classmate texted him via WhatsApp.

ADVERTISEMENT

“So this guy wrote to me saying, ‘Hey, Stas, now you will not try to hide the fact that the West is actually unleashing a huge war against the Russian Federation — because Germany is sending its tanks to Ukraine, just like the German Panthers and Tigers back in the Great Patriotic War,” Kucher said. It sounded like a message lifted almost verbatim from Russian television, or those propaganda-filled Telegram channels.

As Grid has said before, it’s been difficult throughout the war to gauge Russian public opinion with any accuracy. And so it’s hard to know how ordinary Russians will respond to this latest salvo of propaganda and the notion that their country is once again facing a Nazi threat from Berlin.

Kucher said the answer to that question depends to some extent on how much “the ordinary Russians we’re talking about” are influenced by television. He and others have noted that there is ample alternative information to be found on online platforms, if you know where to look. “Unfortunately,” he added, “I do know Russians who were against the war in February and who now are more pro-war because their line of thought is like this: ‘Well, OK, we should not have marched into Ukraine, but we did and now the entire West is against us. It’s either us or them. So we just have no other choice.’”

But it’s also the case that Russian propaganda narratives have veered wildly since the war began — even when it comes to defining the basic aim of the war. What the Kremlin still calls a “special military operation” has, at various stages, been described as a campaign to root out the “Nazis” in Ukraine, to topple Ukraine’s “genocidal” leaders, to safeguard Russian rights or to restore a broader “Russian World.” It has also been portrayed as a wider conflict against NATO and the West. Today, for some at least, it’s a war against Germany. One can forgive Russian viewers and readers if the dizzying messages have them a bit confused.

Even the narratives of the last 48 hours have been a salad of different messages: The tank deployments won’t help the Ukrainians, Russia will destroy the tanks, and the tanks pose a menace to Russia, and therefore Germany itself must be attacked. And then, the “it’s-Hitler-all-over-again” message, as Kucher described the latest flood of propaganda.

ADVERTISEMENT

A discerning audience would presumably notice all these wild swings.

“Three weeks ago,” Kucher said, “they were saying, ‘See, the West is not ready to support Ukraine anymore’ and, ‘The West does not have enough weapons for themselves’, and, ‘The West is tired of supporting Ukraine’. And now the message is, ‘It’s sending these dangerous weapons.’ And so there is a definite and obvious contradiction here.”

For the moment, however, the message-makers have seized on a powerful cocktail of memory and nationalism and long-held animosities to fashion a new argument. And what they have come up with is a call to all Russians to fight, just as their ancestors did in the “Great Patriotic War.”

Stanislav Kucher contributed reporting. Thanks to Lillian Barkley for copy editing this article.

grid.news · by Tom Nagorski

8.

Document photocopies at the link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/george-kennan-warning-on-ukraine

Excerpts:

Predictions often get it woefully wrong. Kennan underestimated the intensity of Ukrainian nationalism. But his prognostications in 1948 about Russian stubbornness when it came to Ukraine and his warnings in the 1990s about American insensitivity and ambition ring true today. His suggestion of some federal structure and regional autonomy in disputed areas remains promising, albeit increasingly challenging to implement.

The overriding issue here is what the Yale historian Paul Kennedy called imperial overstretch. Back in World War II, Kennan endured long flights in icy cargo planes hopscotching across the Atlantic by reading Edward Gibbon on how the Roman Empire declined and then fell. Kennan came away skeptical about the long-run viability of even the mightiest countries maintaining military forces far from home. As a result, he underrated the stabilizing effect of U.S. troops stationed in Western Europe during the Cold War.

Since the Cold War, however, the United States’ military frontier has advanced much further eastward. Regardless of how Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine ends, the United States has committed itself to sustaining a robust military presence on Russia’s doorstep. If alive today, Kennan would note the danger of cornering the Russians to the point where they might lash out. He would also gesture toward the United States’ multiple problems at home and wonder how this exposed presence in Eastern Europe accorded with the long-term foreign and domestic interests of the American people.

Kennan's Warning on Ukraine

Ambition, Insecurity, and the Perils of Independence

By Frank Costigliola

January 27, 2023

Foreign Affairs · by Frank Costigliola · January 27, 2023

George Kennan, the remarkable U.S. diplomat and probing observer of international relations, is famous for forecasting the collapse of the Soviet Union. Less well known is his warning in 1948 that no Russian government would ever accept Ukrainian independence. Foreseeing a deadlocked struggle between Moscow and Kyiv, Kennan made detailed suggestions at the time about how Washington should deal with a conflict that pitted an independent Ukraine against Russia. He returned to this subject half a century later. Kennan, then in his 90s, cautioned that the eastward expansion of NATO would doom democracy in Russia and ignite another Cold War.

Kennan probably knew Russia more intimately than anyone who ever served in the U.S. government. Even before he arrived in Moscow in 1933 as a 29-year-old aide to the first U.S. ambassador the Soviet Union, he had mastered Russian and could pass as a native. In Russia, Kennan immersed himself in newspapers, official documents, literature, radio, theater, and film. He wore himself thin partying into the night with Russian artists, intellectuals, and junior officials. Dressed like a Russian, Kennan eavesdropped on Muscovites in the streetcar or at the theater. He hiked or skied into the countryside to visit gems of early Russian architecture. His disdain for Joseph Stalin’s dictatorship, particularly after the onset of the bloody purges of 1935–38, was matched only by his desire to get close to the Russian people and their culture. In 1946, after dictating his famed long telegram to the State Department warning of the Soviet threat, Kennan was brought back to Washington. The following year, he won national attention for his article in Foreign Affairs calling for the containment of Soviet expansion.

Kennan was unique. When Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson told a colleague that the gifted diplomat was slated to head the newly formed Policy Planning Staff, the colleague replied that “a man like Kennan would be excellent for that job.” Acheson snapped back: “A man like Kennan? There’s nobody like Kennan.” Operating from an office next door to the secretary of state, Kennan helped craft the Marshall Plan and other major midcentury initiatives.

Kennan’s star would dim after 1949 as he opposed the growing militarization of U.S. foreign policy, but he was still venerated as a Russian expert. His advice was sought by the Truman administration when it feared provoking Russia’s entry into the Korean War, by the Eisenhower administration after the death of Stalin, and by the Kennedy administration during the Berlin crisis of 1961. Despite his televised opposition to the Vietnam War and his protests against the nuclear arms race, Kennan was consulted by officials in the State Department and in the CIA well into the 1990s. In 2003, he held a press conference to protest the invasion of Iraq. An elitist blinkered by ugly prejudices that he had absorbed in the early twentieth century, Kennan nevertheless remained a clear-sighted foreign policy analyst until his death in 2005.

In light of this expertise, it is worth examining both Kennan’s skepticism about Ukrainian independence and his suggestion of how Washington should respond to a Russian attack on an independent Ukraine.

A UKRAINE SKEPTIC

In a policy paper titled “U.S. Objectives with Respect to Russia” completed in August 1948, Kennan laid out the United States’ ultimate aims in the event that the Russians invaded Ukraine. He realized that Ukrainians “resented Russian domination; and their nationalistic organizations have been active and vocal abroad.” It would therefore “be easy to jump to the conclusion” that Ukraine should be independent. He asserted that the United States should not, however, encourage that separation.

Kennan’s assessment grossly underestimated Ukrainians’ will to self-determination. Nevertheless, two problems identified by Kennan three-quarters of a century ago have persisted, particularly in the minds of Russian leaders. Kennan doubted that Russians and Ukrainians could be easily distinguished in ethnic terms. He wrote in a State Department memo that “there is no clear dividing line between Russia and Ukraine, and it would be impossible to establish one.” Second, the Russian and Ukrainian economies were intertwined. Setting up an independent Ukraine “would be as artificial and as destructive as an attempt to separate the Corn Belt, including the Great Lakes industrial area, from the economy of the United States.”

To read “U.S. Objectives with Respect to Russia,” click here.

Since 1991, Ukrainians have struggled to establish a territorial and ethnic dividing line while forging economic independence from the Russian behemoth. Moscow has undermined these efforts by encouraging discontent in the eastern Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, fomenting independence movements and now officially annexing four breakaway regions. With years of political and economic pressure and now with military brutality, Russia has tried to thwart Ukraine’s economic independence by disrupting its gas pipelines, grain exports, and shipping.

Even at the height of the Cold War, Kennan insisted that “we cannot be indifferent to the feelings of the Great Russians themselves.” Because the Russians would remain the “strongest national element” in the area, any viable “long-term U.S. policy must be based on their acceptance and their cooperation.” Again, Kennan likened the Russian view of Ukraine to the American view of the Midwest. A separate, independent Ukraine could “be maintained, in the last analysis, only by force.” For all these reasons, a hypothetical triumphant United States should not seek to impose Ukrainian independence on a prostrate Russia.

Should the Ukrainians achieve independence on their own, Kennan advised the State Department, Washington should not interfere, at least initially. It was nearly inevitable, however, that an independent Ukraine would be “challenged eventually from the Russian side.” If in that conflict “an undesirable deadlock was developing,” the United States should push for “a composing of the differences along the lines of a reasonable federalism.”

To read “U.S. Objectives with Respect to Russia,” click here.

Notwithstanding the vicissitudes of the last 75 years, Kennan’s advice remains relevant today. A federation allowing for regional autonomy in eastern Ukraine and perhaps even in Crimea could help both sides coexist. Many analysts tend to portray the current conflict as “Putin’s war,” but Kennan believed that almost any strong Russian leader would eventually push back against the total separation of Ukraine. Finally, the realities of demography and geography dictate that Russia in the long run will remain the principal power in these often tragic “bloodlands.” For the sake of both regional stability and long-term U.S. security, Washington needs to sustain a hardheaded, clear-eyed empathy for the interests of the Russians as well as of the Ukrainians and other nationalities.

A PROPHET IGNORED

Unlike Kennan, many Kremlinologists did not see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming. He was hailed as a prophet at the end of the Cold War. Nonetheless, in the ensuing debate over NATO expansion, he was honored rather than heeded. This paradox was illustrated in 1995, when U.S. President Bill Clinton’s adviser on Russian affairs, Strobe Talbott, sought to pay homage to Kennan, whom he deeply admired. Talbott invited Kennan to fly with the president to Moscow for the 50th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day on May 9 commemorating Nazi Germany’s surrender. Back in 1945, Kennan, the ranking U.S. official in Moscow, had warmly greeted the cheering Russians thronging the embassy. Now, however, the 91-year-old declined the invitation because of ill health. His refusal to go was probably for the best.

Kennan likely would have felt used had he learned of the full agenda for the trip. In a memorandum to Clinton, Talbott characterized the day after the anniversary festivities as “May 10: Moment of Truth.” In his meeting with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Clinton did as Talbott suggested and pressured the Russians to accept both NATO’s expansion and Moscow’s participation in the Partnership for Peace, an association best understood as “NATO-lite” that was crafted to soothe Russian concerns. Talbott admitted to Clinton that “virtually all major players in Russia, all across the political spectrum, are either deeply opposed to, or at least deeply worried about, NATO expansion.”

By 1997, Kennan was further alarmed by Washington’s decision to have NATO not only admit the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland but also to initiate military and naval cooperation with Ukraine. The redrawn line dividing east from west was compelling Ukraine and other nations to choose sides. “Nowhere does this choice appear more portentous and pregnant with fateful consequences than in the case of Ukraine,” Kennan warned Talbott in a private letter.

To read the full letter, click here.

He worried in particular about Sea Breeze, a joint Ukrainian-NATO naval exercise that defied Russia’s traditional insecurity about foreign warships in the narrow waters of the Black Sea. Although invited to participate in the exercise, Russia had angrily declined. The ongoing dispute at the time between Kyiv and Moscow over the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea added to the tension. How, Kennan asked Talbott, did this naval exercise fit with Washington’s effort “to persuade Russia that the extension of the NATO borders toward the Russian frontier in Eastern Europe has no immediate military connotations?”

To read the full letter, click here

Although respectful of Kennan’s doubts, Talbott held firm. He assumed that the economic prostration of Russia meant that it would have to accommodate itself to Western ways. “Russia will have to break out of a deeply ingrained habit of thinking and behavior,” Talbott wrote to Kennan, by seeking to cooperate with rather than dominate its neighbors. Russia had to do the adjusting and accept U.S. power on its borders. The Clinton administration intended “not to stop cooperating with Ukraine but to redouble our efforts to engage Russia.”

Next to Talbott’s reference to “planning exercises this year in Central Asia as well as the Baltic region,” the exasperated 93-year-old Kennan penned two exclamation marks. Moscow again refused to participate in these Western–led military exercises in areas that had been under its control only a few years earlier.

To read the full letter, click here.

Predictions often get it woefully wrong. Kennan underestimated the intensity of Ukrainian nationalism. But his prognostications in 1948 about Russian stubbornness when it came to Ukraine and his warnings in the 1990s about American insensitivity and ambition ring true today. His suggestion of some federal structure and regional autonomy in disputed areas remains promising, albeit increasingly challenging to implement.

The overriding issue here is what the Yale historian Paul Kennedy called imperial overstretch. Back in World War II, Kennan endured long flights in icy cargo planes hopscotching across the Atlantic by reading Edward Gibbon on how the Roman Empire declined and then fell. Kennan came away skeptical about the long-run viability of even the mightiest countries maintaining military forces far from home. As a result, he underrated the stabilizing effect of U.S. troops stationed in Western Europe during the Cold War.

Since the Cold War, however, the United States’ military frontier has advanced much further eastward. Regardless of how Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine ends, the United States has committed itself to sustaining a robust military presence on Russia’s doorstep. If alive today, Kennan would note the danger of cornering the Russians to the point where they might lash out. He would also gesture toward the United States’ multiple problems at home and wonder how this exposed presence in Eastern Europe accorded with the long-term foreign and domestic interests of the American people.

To read all the documents quoted in this article, click here.

FRANK COSTIGLIOLA is a Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Connecticut and the author of Kennan: A Life between Worlds.

MORE BY FRANK COSTIGLIOLA

Foreign Affairs · by Frank Costigliola · January 27, 2023

9. China could shut down our military in a minute if we don't fix the looming rare earths supply crisis

Excerpts:

Congress and the Biden administration should move more aggressively to help fund critical minerals projects that are shovel-ready. "Shovel-ready" means projects that have (1) completed all exploratory drilling, engineering, and financial analysis sufficient for commercial financing, (2) met all government environmental permitting requirements required for construction, (3) demonstrated that they can sell their products into the market, and (4) earned strong local support.

The window of opportunity to meet the looming supply crisis for rare earths and other critical minerals is narrow and shrinking. It will take a clear-eyed and focused effort to avert it. History shows the importance of doing so.

China could shut down our military in a minute if we don't fix the looming rare earths supply crisis

If we examine most major weapons systems, they cannot function without using rare earth minerals. That's why the current supply crisis is a five-alarm fire

foxnews.com · by Fox News

Video

Lawmakers introduce legislation to get crucial rare earth minerals

Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin has the latest on the rare earth minerals essential to the military and national security on 'Special Report.'

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

In 2010, China precipated a low-intensity conflict with Japan and the West by stopping the export of rare earth elements. Alarm bells rang across the White House, the Pentagon, and corporate America. When China relented after about a week, U.S. military planners knew our country had dodged a bullet. They started asking: how likely is another rare earth squeeze play by China?

As the then-CEO of the only producing rare earth mine in the U.S. in 2010, I rate the odds of another rare earth crisis in the next five years as 9.5 out of 10. As was the case then, neither the U.S. nor our allies are adequately prepared for the economic and military catastrophe that will result. The rare earth projects that were on the drawing board in the U.S. at that time still have not advanced past the permitting and study stages, which means they are still years away from production.

Many modern technologies, and most major weapons systems, require rare earths to function. Without them, we quickly lose the ability to manufacture electric vehicles, advanced wind turbines, energy-saving appliances, Abrams tanks, F-35s, smartphones – the list goes on and on.

SWEDEN DISCOVERS HUGE DEPOSITS OF RARE METALS, A POTENTIAL STEP TO ENDING EUROPE’S DEPENDENCY ON CHINA

The crux of the impending crisis? We don't make the rare earth materials needed by these technologies, so we must get them from China. All major Chinese rare earth companies produce and export under the close supervision of their government. That gives Beijing a button it can press at will to quickly hobble Western economies and degrade our defense systems.

Unless and until the U.S. government moves aggressively to help fund and advance American critical minerals mining, Western militaries will drive, fly, and sail by the grace of Chinese rare earths.

China is also not shy about reminding us of this leverage. For example, in the midst of heated trade tensions during the Trump years, Chinese President Xi Jinping decided to make a highly publicized tour of the JL MAG Rare-Earth factory in Ganzhou, China, where high-performance rare earth magnets are produced. The photo op from that tour, released by Xinhau, China's official state news agency, was unambiguous in its message: we still hold the keys, America, to much of your technology and economy. Don't cross us.

U.S. military planners focus on dealing with a rare earth cut-off due to direct confrontation with China. I see a more likely reason: good old-fashioned market competition.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, sits down with representatives of teachers and students at a symposium and delivers an important speech during a visit to Renmin University of China in Beijing, capital of China, April 25, 2022. (Photo by Ju Peng/Xinhua via Getty Images) (Ju Peng/Xinhua via Getty Images)

China leads the world in producing and processing rare earths. China is also the world's largest consumer of rare earths – by far. But its mineral resources are finite.

Today, China uses its rare earths to manufacture and export electric vehicles, wind turbines, energy-saving appliances and motors, weapons systems, and nearly every electronic device in everyday use. China already is the world's largest producer of electric vehicles. It wants to dominate that and other durable goods markets.

THE FIGHT FOR RARE EARTH MINERALS

It should come as no surprise, then, that China would rather export Chinese-made EVs powered by Chinese-made rare earth magnets as opposed to exporting rare earth magnets to the West so we can make competing EVs. By keeping more of its rare earths in-country, China also creates and sustains robust supply chains and a manufacturing ecosystem that employs millions of its workers.

We need to prepare more aggressively for the day when Chinese rare earths are no longer readily available. The Biden administration, and the Trump administration before it, have taken concrete steps to encourage greater U.S. rare earth and other critical mineral mining and processing. Yet in the dozen years since the 2010 export halt, the West has overall made scant progress.

Video

For example, Australia is mining rare earths and processing them in Malaysia, although it still sells a significant portion of its output to Chinese customers. A large rare earth mine in California is digging up rare earths, thanks in part to support from the Defense Department and is working toward launching value-added rare earth processing. Yet today it still mines and sells its rare earth feedstock to – you guessed it – China.

OKLAHOMA SECURES AMERICA’S FIRST RARE EARTH METAL AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY OUTSIDE OF CHINA

There is no getting around the fact that bringing mines online in the U.S. takes a long time. The company I now lead, NioCorp Developments, has worked for more than a decade to bring our large critical minerals resource to commercial launch once sufficient project financing is obtained to allow the project to proceed. We have secured all federal, state and local permits necessary to proceed, thanks to an innovative environmental project design. The project enjoys strong local support.

But we are still three years away from production once we are fully financed. Many other critical minerals projects in the U.S. face even longer timelines. Some will never get operational.

While the U.S. struggles to make more of our own critical minerals, China continues to send not-so-subtle reminders that it can send a hypersonic mineral 'missile' with the press of a button. Unless and until the U.S. government moves aggressively to help fund and advance American critical minerals by mining, Western militaries will drive, fly, and sail by the grace of Chinese rare earths.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

It is time to recognize the mission-critical nature of domestic mining and processing of rare earth and other critical minerals. It is time to stop studying the problem – which governments are fond of doing – and walk the talk of critical minerals.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Congress and the Biden administration should move more aggressively to help fund critical minerals projects that are shovel-ready. "Shovel-ready" means projects that have (1) completed all exploratory drilling, engineering, and financial analysis sufficient for commercial financing, (2) met all government environmental permitting requirements required for construction, (3) demonstrated that they can sell their products into the market, and (4) earned strong local support.

The window of opportunity to meet the looming supply crisis for rare earths and other critical minerals is narrow and shrinking. It will take a clear-eyed and focused effort to avert it. History shows the importance of doing so.

Mark A.Smith is the former CEO of Molycorp, Inc., which pioneered rare earth production in the U.S. before being knocked offline by the Chinese in 2015. He currently is the CEO and Executive Chairman of NioCorp Developments Ltd., which is developing the Elk Creek Critical Minerals Project in southeast Nebraska, which is designed to produce niobium, scandium and titanium.

foxnews.com · by Fox News

10. Japan’s Strategic Shift Is Significant, but Implementation Hurdles Await

Conclusion:

Japan’s new strategic documents appear to demonstrate a recognition in Tokyo that it must do more for its own defense in the face of unprecedented security challenges. The dedication of resources, pursuit of new capabilities, and overarching commitment to a more robust defense are all significant moves that represent landmark change by one of America’s key allies — indeed, one of the most consequential strategic developments in the region in years. As positive as this appears, there is a risk that some ambitions may not be realized — at least on the timeline set out in the documents — due to insufficient resources, manpower, technology, or political will.

As a key ally, it is in the interest of the United States to help Japan address these challenges. The United States can help Japan where possible, through technology support, sales of key equipment, concept and doctrine development, or more realistic training. It could also work with Japan to help prioritize its efforts to avoid spreading finite resources too thin across all initiatives. Taking these steps now will help ensure that in 10 years the United States finds a more robust defense ally in Japan.

Japan’s Strategic Shift Is Significant, but Implementation Hurdles Await - War on the Rocks

JEFFREY W. HORNUNG AND CHRISTOPHER B. JOHNSTONE

warontherocks.com · by Jeffrey W. Hornung · January 27, 2023

Last month, the Japanese government released three landmark strategic documents: the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Defense Buildup Plan. Collectively, they represent pathbreaking change and may signal that Tokyo not only shares a common strategic vision with the United States but is also committed to do far more for its own defense.

Japan’s post–World War II defense policy has been defined by incrementalism and inelasticity. Beginning in the 1970s, Tokyo had a tendency to constrain defense spending to 1 percent of GDP. After the country’s economic bubble burst in the mid-1990s, Japanese economic growth slowed significantly — and Japanese defense spending effectively stagnated as a result. Spending in 2021 was just 9 percent higher than the level almost 25 years earlier. Tokyo’s announcements on December 16 therefore signify an inflection point, both in the volume of planned defense investments and the capabilities the country intends to acquire. Together, these changes reflect an evolved concept of deterrence for Japan and what is required to sustain it, and once implemented they could result in a much more capable U.S. ally and critical force multiplier.

With complaints in Washington throughout most of the post–Cold War era that Japan’s security contributions were not commensurate with its economic stature, this newfound demonstration of commitment represents a significant step forward for Japan. If it follows through on its plans, Japan could emerge as a formidable defense actor over the next 10 years. All of this is good news for the U.S.-Japan alliance, given the increasingly important role Japan plays in Washington’s national security and defense strategies. Yet, even with a significant growth in spending — a planned nearly 60 percent increase in the defense budget over five years — clear prioritization will be critical to ensuring resources are used effectively and not spread thin across competing areas of focus.

Japan’s new defense approach and the resources behind it are positive for the region, the U.S.-Japan alliance, and Japan itself. At the same time, it is important to anticipate the challenges and impediments that could slow or alter implementation. As an ally at the center of much that the United States hopes to achieve in the region, it matters for policymakers in Washington that Japan succeeds. With this in mind, we focus on four major areas where Japan may encounter challenges in implementing its strategy in the years ahead: standoff defense capabilities, cyber capabilities, uncrewed capabilities, and — most importantly — manpower.

Become a Member

Japan’s New Approach

Describing Japan’s security environment as “the most severe and complex … since the end of World War II,” Tokyo’s national security and defense strategies set out plans for unprecedented change. First, Japan will increase annual defense spending by almost 60 percent by 2027, shattering the longstanding unofficial barrier of about 1 percent of GDP. The Defense Ministry’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2023, the first year of the plan, reflects an increase of more than 20 percent over the current year — which by itself would represent historic change. Second, it will acquire capabilities it has long eschewed, in particular long-range precision strike land attack missiles, capable of hitting targets deep inside North Korean or Chinese territory. While the Japanese government insists that the new strategies are consistent with the Constitution and post-war defense strategy, they nevertheless reflect an important evolution in Japan’s approach to defense and deterrence that traditionally focused on striking forces engaged in an armed attack against Japan itself. Today, while Japan’s strategy is still anchored on its defense, its deterrent focus is extended far beyond Japanese territory to striking those facilities that could support an attack against Japan. The reasoning behind this is the acknowledgement by Japanese decision-makers that simply relying on air and missile defense capabilities alone will prove insufficient should an adversary seek to attack or invade Japan. Counterstrike would give Japan the ability to target military facilities deep in an adversary’s territory, reinforcing deterrence by raising the cost of aggression against Japan.

The defense strategy sets out seven broad areas of focus for the defense buildup: standoff capabilities, including long-range precision strike; integrated air and missile defense; uncrewed systems; cross-domain capabilities, including space, cyber, and electromagnetic capabilities; mobility and lift; intelligence and resilient command and control; and a catchall “sustainability” category, which includes areas ranging from munitions stocks, to readiness and maintenance, to hardening of facilities. If done right, Japan could field a formidable force over the next decade that could play a credible force-multiplier role for the U.S. military in the region. But this wide range of focus invites concern about implementation and prioritization, even in an environment of increased resources.

Standoff Defense Capabilities

The capability that has received the most attention has been Japan’s decision to acquire long-range counterstrike capabilities, and increased inventories of missiles it has already decided to procure. This decision could make strategic sense, given the rapid development of Chinese and North Korean missile capabilities that can threaten the entire Japanese archipelago. Japan’s integrated air and missile defense capabilities are robust, and will expand further under the new plan, but focusing solely on intercepting missiles over Japan is almost certainly inadequate. The prospect of a Japan capable of responding to a missile attack with strikes of its own would introduce a challenging new variable in the decision-making calculus of Pyongyang and Beijing, possibly forcing them to invest more in defenses.

The decision to acquire this capability is therefore significant, and by itself will consume considerable resources. Japan’s budget outline envisions spending 5 trillion yen (nearly $50 billion) through 2027 on standoff capabilities of various ranges, including investments in shorter range weapons previously committed to like the Joint Strike Missile and the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, acquisition of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, enhancements to the indigenous Type-12 cruise missile, and development of indigenous hypersonic capabilities.

Two factors could determine the credibility of Japan’s plans for a suite of strike capabilities and are important to track in the years ahead. The first is quantity. Historically, Japanese investments in munitions have been low, and even the small budgets set aside for munitions were frequently the victim of cannibalization to fund other priorities. For Japan’s strike capabilities to be more than symbolic, a dedicated commitment to stockpiling and storage may be needed. The volume of resources set out in the five-year plan, which includes specific spending figures associated with each system — with the exception of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which has yet to be determined bilaterally — appears to reflect a recognition that well-stocked missile depots could be critical to credible deterrence, and the FY2023 budget request reflects a concerted focus on munitions stocks. Because the actual numbers procured and stockpiled will never be made public, the onus will fall on the government to resist the temptation to scale back its stated goals or cannibalize the funds dedicated to them.

A second factor for consideration is the kill chain architecture and the concept of operations for Japan’s counterstrike capability. In the near term, Tokyo and Washington plan to work to integrate Japan’s capabilities — in particular the Tomahawk — into the U.S. intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, targeting, and battle damage assessment architecture. This is a smart strategy, one that could reduce Japan’s cost and accelerate the timeline for bringing a Japanese capability online, which Japan hopes to do by 2026. But the National Defense Strategy leaves open the question of whether Japan will eventually seek to develop its own autonomous kill chain architecture. The Defense Buildup Plan notes the “necessity” of Japan strengthening space-based capabilities to observe and track targets on-land and at-sea “at a high frequency,” pointing to an interest, also reported in the Japanese media, in developing a robust indigenous satellite architecture to support counterstrike operations. An effort to develop a separate, indigenous architecture could represent a significant resource drain, one that does not appear to be accounted for in the five-year budget. And because the development of such a satellite constellation could come at considerable cost, the wisest strategy is one that involves an integrated architecture with the United States over the long term.

Cyber Capabilities

Japan’s documents place a heavy emphasis on strengthening cyber capabilities across multiple lines of effort. Planned initiatives include creating a revamped national incident response center, with broader authorities to set cybersecurity standards across the Japanese government and to promote public-private information sharing on cyber threats to critical infrastructure. The documents call for developing an “active defense” cyber capability, in which the government would have the ability to penetrate and disrupt the computer networks of an adversary. Japan’s National Defense Strategy calls for a significant expansion of the Self-Defense Forces’ cyberforce, from around 800 personnel today to about 4,000 by 2027 with the total force population performing cyber functions growing to 20,000, focused on strengthening cyber defense of critical networks.

The National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy focus on strengthening cyber capacity comes amid U.S. government concerns about cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the Japanese government, but important questions remain to be answered. Growing the cyber force as envisioned could require highly skilled personnel, but with challenges in recruitment, the personnel goal may be hard to achieve. Also unclear is where the government’s active defense capability would be housed. Media reports indicate plans to expand the Self-Defense Forces’ mandate to include defense of some critical infrastructure in the private sector, as part of a new legal framework for cyber defense to be established by 2024. Regardless of where these activities are housed and how many personnel can be devoted to them, new legislation could be required related to advance these initiatives. Given the sensitivity of privacy issues in Japan, and issues relating to the government getting more engaged in cyberspace, progress on this issue could require substantial political capital.

The Defense Ministry’s plans are arguably ahead of the curve inside the government. Other ministries with a role in national security may need to step up as well. The overarching priority for the Japanese government should be to strengthen common network security standards and cybersecurity practices across the system. In this context, the stated plans to develop an “active defense” capability are a secondary priority.

Uncrewed Capabilities

Japan is set on increasing the numbers and types of uncrewed capabilities across its three Self-Defense Forces services over the next 10 years, to perform not just information gathering and surveillance, but other missions, including combat support. Japan also wants to integrate these efforts with AI, which means instead of relying primarily on remote human operators and vulnerable communication links to make decisions, it will depend — in part — on computers. This appears logical, given Japan faces a quantitatively larger adversary in China and Self-Defense Forces recruitment continues to lag. Uncrewed platforms address both challenges because such assets generally can provide more coverage and persistent presence than crewed platforms, and can offer more affordable, attritable options that Japan can procure in greater numbers. They also can help address sustainment issues given that uncrewed assets generally require smaller facilities and can be dispersed to more austere locations throughout the archipelago.

To date, despite some tentative steps into uncrewed platforms, such as the Global Hawk, Japan has not seriously pursued uncrewed options. Because of this, the plan to jump from three Global Hawks today to a wide range of uncrewed platforms that incorporate AI in 10 years appears ambitious.

One challenge could be cross platform/cross domain integration, both in terms of communication between these uncrewed systems across different domains as well as how these platforms are used together with legacy systems. Successful integration, and the ability for multiple platforms to cooperatively work together, is a reasonable goal, but doing so well in a highly disruptive combat environment may be challenging to achieve in 10 years. There are also questions regarding how Japan seeks to establish a reliable method to control these platforms. The areas where Japan may have the most interest in deploying these assets are far from Japan’s main islands, requiring them to operate in locations where map data may be poor, for example undersea, or reliant on satellites that may be inoperable due to adversary jamming. While Japan hopes to deploy a satellite constellation which could help address these concerns, current military communication satellites are chronically overburdened and fighting for bandwidth.

Another challenge may come with incorporating AI into these systems. AI is attractive because it holds the promise of enabling autonomy, automating tasks, and making quicker decisions than their crewed counterparts. Within the next decade, AI may be effective at performing certain tasks better than humans, such as image recognition and multi-tasking, but AI systems require data to function and many AI systems are trained using data in an uncontested, controlled environment that has been inputted by a human. Getting to a future where AI-enabled uncrewed platforms can work well in a heavily contested environment with rapidly changing variables may be further off than the documents suggest. Critically, given Japan’s longstanding limitations on the use of force and strict rules of engagement imposed on the Self-Defense Forces, it is difficult to imagine that it will be willing to rely on automation to make engagement decisions for using force. Even with nonlethal missions, in a country that historically has delegated decision-making up the line of command, decision-makers are unlikely to be comfortable with delegating military operations to computers.

None of this is to suggest that Japan’s push for uncrewed platforms and AI is wrong, as these could play critical roles in future military applications. It is instead to suggest that Japan’s plan may be highly optimistic. Integrating AI and uncrewed platforms into any military system may be more of a gradual shift rather than one achievable in less than a decade.

The Overarching Challenge: Manpower

Of all the challenges that Japan will face, limitations in manpower may be its greatest. Japan is poised to undertake an unprecedented defense buildup — but it intends to do so without increasing the size of the Self-Defense Forces. Instead, there will be some reallocation of personnel across services — around 2,000 from the Ground Self-Defense Force to the Maritime Self-Defense Force and Air Self-Defense Force — but no growth in the overall size of the force. The reality of Japan’s shrinking population, and the traditional challenges meeting recruitment targets, could make any real growth impossible. In addition to introducing uncrewed assets, the strategy could rely on several personnel approaches — raising the retirement age of personnel, improving conditions for women, leveraging retired personnel for training and personnel development, and contracting and outsourcing. These steps make sense, given the manpower limitations, but the effectiveness of these solutions is open to debate.

Consider first raising the retirement ages and leveraging retired personnel. As a 2020 RAND report argued, these options age the force, which adversely affects Japan’s ability to support a regional contingency because older personnel face greater health issues and are likely less adept at incorporating new technologies than their younger counterparts. Contracting and outsourcing to private companies works in peacetime where the Self-Defense Forces can use transportation services by ships or planes to conduct drills or emergency responses for natural disasters, but it is unclear how realistic using civilian capabilities in a combat situation will be. And even if the push to introduce uncrewed capabilities is considered as a partial solution to the manpower issue, these too require personnel. In fact, given the nature of these platforms and the incorporation of AI, Japan may require more highly trained personnel than those currently recruited to operate legacy systems.

In combination with other elements of the strategy — including growing the cyber force, training operators for uncrewed platforms, introducing crewed ships focused on ballistic missile defense, and establishing a permanent joint operational headquarters distinct from the existing Joint Staff — finding sufficient personnel may prove to be a significant hurdle in achieving the objectives of the strategy. For example, compared with manpower shortages in a Ground Self-Defense Force infantry unit, where taskings can be shifted to other units, manpower shortages in the Maritime Self-Defense Force and Air Self-Defense Force could translate into deployment problems for ships and planes where those assets require a set number of personnel. Although the National Defense Strategy demonstrates a recognition of the manpower problem, it is unclear how effective the proposed solutions will be for developing the more robust and deterrent force the documents envision. If they fall short, implementing the strategy could become difficult.

Conclusion

Japan’s new strategic documents appear to demonstrate a recognition in Tokyo that it must do more for its own defense in the face of unprecedented security challenges. The dedication of resources, pursuit of new capabilities, and overarching commitment to a more robust defense are all significant moves that represent landmark change by one of America’s key allies — indeed, one of the most consequential strategic developments in the region in years. As positive as this appears, there is a risk that some ambitions may not be realized — at least on the timeline set out in the documents — due to insufficient resources, manpower, technology, or political will.

As a key ally, it is in the interest of the United States to help Japan address these challenges. The United States can help Japan where possible, through technology support, sales of key equipment, concept and doctrine development, or more realistic training. It could also work with Japan to help prioritize its efforts to avoid spreading finite resources too thin across all initiatives. Taking these steps now will help ensure that in 10 years the United States finds a more robust defense ally in Japan.

Become a Member

Jeffrey W. Hornung is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation and adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

Christopher B. Johnstone is Japan chair and a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Biden and Obama administrations, and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for more than a decade.

Uncategorized

warontherocks.com · by Jeffrey W. Hornung · January 27, 2023

11. New U.S. Base on Guam Is Aimed at Deterring China

I think we assume this will deter China. But how do we know that? Have we asked what will actually deter China and will opening a base actually have a deterrent effect (or more aptly, contribute to deterrence). I think we often apply our own logic to deterrence - a huge military base in the region will deter any potential adversaries.

I am not sure this really has the deterrent effect we desire. Of course as long as there is no conflict we can assume it is having a deterrent effect. But there may be other reasons for China to decide not to attack.

New U.S. Base on Guam Is Aimed at Deterring China

Camp Blaz is eventually expected to house 5,000 Marines and be a hub for training in the Western Pacific

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-u-s-base-on-guam-is-aimed-at-deterring-china-11674731857

By Nancy A. Youssef

Jan. 26, 2023 6:17 am ET

ASAN BEACH, Guam—The U.S. Marine Corps marked the opening of a new base on America’s westernmost Pacific island, as the Pentagon redirects its forces to counter China, which Washington has identified as a growing threat to U.S. security.

The first new Marine base since 1952, it is still under construction. It will eventually house 5,000 Marines charged in the short term with deterring and detecting threats in the region.

Longer term, the Guam base, about equidistant from Japan and Taiwan, is also slated to be a hub for Marines on Guam and across the Northern Mariana Islands to train for protecting Pacific islands, including vital sea lanes, in the event of an invasion.

As U.S. concerns grow about China’s military power, and the threat to Taiwan, the base would prepare more Marines for potential conflict in the Western Pacific islands. Marines would be closer to the front lines of a potential conflict, available to quickly travel from island to island in small teams armed with antiship missiles to detect, harass and destroy enemy vessels. The new base would also reduce U.S. reliance on keeping large numbers of troops in Japan, where their presence has at times caused local resentment.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

What’s News

Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.

Preview

Subscribe

If there is a conflict with China, the Marines would be among the first ground forces to respond.

“We don’t want to fight to get to the fight. We want to already be inside so if there’s a conflict, the stand-in forces are already forward,” said Gen. David Berger, the Marine Corps commandant.

In the absence of conflict, troops in Guam could practice live-fire exercises, while those stationed in the Northern Mariana Islands could practice maneuvers and overland transfers, defense officials said.

“The role of the Marines in Guam on that side of the international date line is to reinforce the policy of deterrence, which is the underpinnings of our national defense strategy,” Gen. Berger said.

The ceremony inaugurating the base, which was activated in 2020, was delayed twice by the pandemic.

PHOTO: NANCY A. YOUSSEF/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

On Thursday, FA-18C Hornets did a flyover and hundreds of Marines stood in front of lines of palm trees and the Pacific Ocean and marched before top Guam officials, including the governor. Japanese defense officials also attended the event. The speakers didn’t name China but referred to “challenges in the world.”

Despite the fanfare during Thursday’s naming ceremony, the base is more than a year away from becoming fully operational. Fewer than 100 troops are currently stationed there, with the bulk of the rest expected to arrive by December 2024.

Regular troop training along the second island chain is further away, defense officials said, likely closer to 2027. Navy Adm. Phil Davidson, the former head of the Indo-Pacific Command, notably predicted China could try to attack Taiwan that year. The military still needs to iron out logistics because the U.S. doesn’t yet have the infrastructure to house and support all the troops it wants to station in the region.

Guam and its nearby islands particularly lack ports for bringing in supplies and conducting some training exercises. The remote location makes building and supplying construction projects difficult, defense officials said.

Many residents aren’t enthusiastic about the strain thousands of forces could put on their infrastructure. Others fear how much a large military presence could alter islands geared toward tourism.

In Tinian, for example, an island to the north of Guam still peppered by Japanese air-raid shelters used during World War II, thousands signed petitions opposing the U.S. plans to hold training exercises there, saying they fear the U.S. troop presence more than Chinese attacks, Tinian Mayor Edwin Aldan said.

Over time, through a series of meetings with the U.S. about what the military footprint would look like, more people have embraced the change, Mr. Aldan said. In the days leading up to the ceremony, Gen. Berger traveled to the Northern Mariana Islands of Saipan and Tinian to meet with government officials.

An Inside Look at the U.S. Strategy in Guam as China Stockpiles Missiles

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

An Inside Look at the U.S. Strategy in Guam as China Stockpiles Missiles

Play video: An Inside Look at the U.S. Strategy in Guam as China Stockpiles Missiles

November 2021: The U.S. Army is testing the Iron Dome on Guam. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday got a firsthand look at the missile-defense system, which arrived months after a top military leader called the island’s defenses inadequate against threats from China. Photo: Adam Falk/The Wall Street Journal

At first, “people were disappointed that there was going to be active bombing,” Mr. Aldan said. But the U.S. scaled back the size of the exercises. Now, he said, residents and government officials are saying, “Let’s work together so we can have access [to U.S. infrastructure]. You have access, and we can co-share, whatever the costs.”

Guam is within China’s missile-strike range and believed to be within North Korea’s. A war-gaming exercise developed by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies and released earlier this month concluded that Guam is vulnerable to a Chinese attack and that the U.S. military should fortify its defenses. In 2022, the U.S. moved an antimissile system known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, from Guam’s Andersen Air Force base to Camp Blaz, the newly named Marine base, to improve its defenses there.

The growing U.S. military presence on Guam has been at least a decade in the making. It began in 2012 after Japan asked the U.S. to move some troops out of Okinawa and gained traction in 2018 after the U.S. national-defense strategy called China a pre-eminent threat to U.S. interests and security in the region. Japan and the U.S. are funding the $8.7 billion project, with the U.S. paying the bulk of costs.

There are roughly 10,000 U.S. troops stationed in Guam, compared with roughly 26,000 during the Cold War, defense officials said. Before Camp Blaz, the Marines operated barracks on the island from 1946 to 1992, when the U.S. began reducing its presence.

Camp Blaz is named for Brig. Gen. Vicente “Ben” Tomás Garrido Blaz, who survived a Japanese prison camp during World War II and became the Marine Corps’ highest-ranking Chamorro, as the indigenous people from the Mariana Islands are known, as well as Guam’s delegate to Congress from 1985 to 1993. Gen. Blaz died in 2014. His two grandsons and sister were at Thursday’s ceremony.

The U.S. military activated Camp Blaz in October 2020 and was supposed to formally introduce it to the public shortly afterward, but the ceremony was delayed twice by the pandemic before finally taking place Thursday.

Write to Nancy A. Youssef at nancy.youssef@wsj.com

12. Marine Corps Activates Sprawling New Base On Highly Strategic Guam

Of course the name China might give this base is "target."

Marine Corps Activates Sprawling New Base On Highly Strategic Guam

Camp Blaz will be an epicenter of Marine Corps activity in the Pacific and will play a key role in a larger force realignment strategy.

BY

EMMA HELFRICH

|

PUBLISHED JAN 26, 2023 9:32 PM

thedrive.com · by Emma Helfrich · January 27, 2023

The U.S. Marine Corps has activated a new base camp on the strategic island of Guam in the Pacific, and, at least according to the Marines, it will serve as the first newly constructed base for the service in 70 years. Named Camp Blaz, the installation’s location is not only steeped in Marine Corps history dating back decades but the activation also reflects the U.S. military's evolving posture in the increasingly tense region over which China looms.

On Jan. 26, 2023, USMC Maj. Gen. David Maxwell, commander of Marine Corps Installations Command, hosted a ceremony at Asan Beach on Guam with the island’s governor in attendance to celebrate the activation and naming of Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Blaz. The base, which will be situated on Guam’s northern plateau near Andersen Air Force Base, is named after Brig. Gen. Vicente ‘Ben’ Tomas Garrido Blaz, the first indigenous Marine from the Marianas Islands to earn the rank of general officer. The camp was first administratively activated on Oct. 1, 2020 in a small-scale ceremony because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Camp Blaz activation ceremony. Credit: USMC

“Today is an important day that marks the future of the Marines on Guam, and it is also a day to reflect on the century-long history of the Marine Corps in this beautiful place we call home,” said Col. Christopher Bopp, MCB Camp Blaz’s commanding officer in a USMC press release. “On this island Marines and their Chamoru brethren have lived in peace and fought in war together, and we are proud to carry on this legacy of honor and courage.”

Camp Blaz will shape up to be approximately 4,000 acres in size and will cost an estimated $8.6 billion to build. In 2020 alone, the Defense Department awarded contracts worth half of the total cost of the camp, and among the 16 projects that have since been completed include multiple barracks, four of five firing ranges, one of two aircraft hangars, and associated infrastructure. Other projects will include a physical training complex and an urban combat training facility.

A rendering depicting barracks currently under construction aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz in Guam. Credit: DoD photo illustration by Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific

A rendering depicting the completed Fire and Emergency Services building for Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz in Guam. Credit: DoD photo illustration by Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific

Vehicles and heavy equipment in the Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz aircraft hangar. Credit: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Andrew King

Stars and Stripes reported that 5,000 Marines are expected to arrive at Camp Blaz sometime in the next several years. That figure breaks down to about 1,300 members of the III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and an additional 3,700 Marines that will be assigned to the installation on a rotating basis. The III MEF, which is a forward-deployed formation of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force made up of several subordinate units, is currently headquartered at MCB Courtney located in Okinawa, Japan.

It was decided that Guam should be the location for the new base as part of the 2012 Bilateral Agreement between the United States and Japanese governments under the Obama administration’s Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI). The DPRI is described as a U.S.-led Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) posture and force redistribution plan supported by Japan that is made up of multiple different initiatives intended to better position U.S. forces in the region.

The activation of Camp Blaz, one of a number of major military expansion projects on the island, is also representative of how the Pentagon's strategic relationship with Guam is deepening. This was underscored last summer when U.S. Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Jon Hill, offered new details on the progress toward equipping the island with highly upgraded air and missile defenses, which you can read about in detail here. Missile defense initiatives are another aspect of the overarching DPRI program geared toward more comprehensively deterring Chinese aggression in the region.

The need to boost the island’s missile defenses is motivated by how, in addition to the newly activated Camp Blaz, Guam is also home to critical Navy and Air Force facilities that would be at high risk for attack in a future Indo-Pacific conflicts. So much so, that U.S. forces are exploring how nearby islands and airfield facilities on them can be used as alternative installations. These threats are posed by capabilities from China’s increasingly advanced arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as hypersonic weapons.

However, it’s worth noting that the DPRI predates the now all-encompassing Force Design 2030 plan currently being implemented by the USMC, as well, which shares similar ambitions. The effort can be read about in detail here and seeks to refocus the Marine Corps from its previously prioritized mission of fighting counter insurgency-focused conflicts against extremists in the Middle East to addressing near-peer adversaries in the Indo-Pacific region.

The pivot will require a shift from inland to littoral operations that employ smaller, more distributed groups of forward-operating Marines, and the service just recently made some moves in this regard. On Jan. 12, the USMC’s 12th Marine Regiment became the 12th Marine Littoral Regiment to serve as a forward-deployed force in Japan and will be one of three that are planned for the Indo-Pacific region.

Camp Blaz will help put Marines in an additional forward position in the Western Pacific, and in a locale that will be less vulnerable to attack than those on the first island chain. Guam is somewhat remote from various potential hotspots, which would put some distance between Marines and areas that could become hotly contested during wartime, as opposed to Okinawa, which is much more in the thick of things. From Guam, Marines could stage and support forces deployed forward, as well. Force Design 2030 is also about ensuring that the service has the infrastructure needed to achieve the rapid deployment of ‘stand-in’ Marine Forces, so having Marines in more locations can only help with that.

“Forward, persistent presence is key to the regional security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz is a critical part of that. More than that, it shows our undivided relationship with the Government of Japan,” Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David H. Berger also said in the release.

Mr. Kimura Jiro, Parliamentary Vice-Minister of Defense from the Government of Japan, speaks at the Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz Reactivation and Naming Ceremony at Asan Beach, Guam, Jan. 26, 2023. Credit: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Garrett Gillespie

The USMC in its announcement said that the construction of Camp Blaz has been “partially funded by a large monetary contribution from the Government of Japan,” and that amount is now known to be around $3 billion.The War Zone has reached out to both the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) and Camp Blaz for more information about this donation and is awaiting a response, but it would nonetheless support Japan’s years-long efforts to scale back U.S. military presence on Okinawa island.

Reducing the U.S. footprint on Okinawa in Japan, thereby relinquishing the land back to the island, is another prominent goal of the DPRI. Moving several elements of the III MEF specifically from Japan to Camp Blaz on Guam is one way the United States is attempting to achieve this.

U.S. Marines with Marine Forces Pacific Band march during the Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz Activation and Naming Ceremony at Asan Beach, National Historical Park, Asan, Guam, on Jan. 26, 2023. Credit: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Jonathan Beauchamp

“The Japan and U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of the people, the peace and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region, and the linchpin of Japan’s foreign policy,” said Ms. Yoshikawa Yuumi, vice-minister for foreign affairs, at the Camp Blaz activation ceremony.

The construction of Camp Blaz is slated to finish in the coming years, so it will be interesting to see just how expansive and influential the installation eventually becomes in the Indo-Pacific.

Contact the author: Emma@thewarzone.com

thedrive.com · by Emma Helfrich · January 27, 2023

13. Why Do Officials Filch Classified Documents?

I mostly stay out of this issue but the conclusion below is thoughtful.

Excerpts:

In any case it’s bad to be showing the world that U.S. leaders can be so derelict in their handling of top secret information. It makes the processes of our government look unprofessional, chaotic, ad hoc.

Congress is right to want to know exactly what’s in all those documents, what danger their cavalier handling posed, and how they wound up where they wound up. They should also look at the classification process itself. Do we overclassify or underclassify things?

As scandals go this is a worthy one—it’s not blown up nonsense over nothing. It won’t likely go away soon and may have serious political implications. It’s not bad to be showing the selfish, abusive or slovenly that if they break the laws on classified documents they will pay a price.

Why Do Officials Filch Classified Documents?

One suspects they want a memento of their time in power. That doesn’t make the matter less serious.

By Peggy NoonanFollow

Jan. 26, 2023 6:11 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-do-officials-filch-classified-documents-biden-trump-scandal-press-intelligence-national-security-11674773587?mod=opinion_lead_pos8

It is a scandal that has intermittently consumed the attention of the press, and I think of a lot of regular people too, because they immediately apprehend the meaning of words like “unlawfully possessed top secret documents.” But people don’t quite know what to make of it. Everything gets so politicized so fast.

You don’t know what level of alarm to feel about the security breaches because you don’t know the documents’ exact contents. Are we talking about a scribbled note on an old Group of 20 schedule, or are we talking about nuclear codes? Is it an amusingly phrased section from an old intelligence report saying the Danish foreign secretary’s husband is said to be romantically involved with a hairdresser whose social-media posts suggest neo-Nazi ties? Or is there a paper in there revealing the names of U.S. intelligence assets in IraBecause you don’t know the content, you can’t infer the motive. Why might a government official illegally bring home and keep classified documents? What did he intend to do with them? “I thought I’d need it for my memoirs.” “I must admit I thought it an unimportant document to anyone but me—it was inappropriately classified because the default mode of clerks is to say, ‘Classify it.’ So I harmlessly declassified.” Or, “Heck, there was no motive because there was no crime! In the last day at the White House my aides scooped the papers off the top of my desk, saw no markings, plopped them in a box with other papers, sent the box to my house where they put them in my basement, and we never knew there were any secret papers in there because we never opened the box!”

There could be other motives. Here’s one that’s too sweet, but early on it’s where my mind went. I thought of the psychology of it​.​

This may not sound true but I’ve seen it. People who were once in power—people who ran the world and then retired, or stepped down to do something else—as time passes and the years go on they can’t believe it happened to them. They can’t believe they had the pope on hold. They gesture to the silver framed picture on the table in the bedroom: “That’s us and the shah.” When they were running the world they took it in stride, but afterward they’re sort of concussed. And maybe they take something sensitive as a memento, as a souvenir of their greatness. I think they know they’re going to want to prove to others, and themselves, that it really happened. “See? We went to Robben Island for a ceremony with Mandela.” Because as years pass you can never believe you were at the center of everything. And you kind of want to show yourself you were.

That probably doesn’t have anything to do with all the secret-document stories. Which probably in their essence have more to do with entitlement and arrogance. The rules are for little people. Also laziness. A former White House official noted to me, “People bring things home to read because they don’t want to stay at the office any more that day. They think, ‘No one will see it,’ ‘It’s in my custody.’ Wrong, and illegal.”

In the case of Donald Trump, we still don’t know exactly what the government seized at Mar-a-Lago. He knew documents were there and refused requests to turn them over. The Federal Bureau of Investigation removed a reported 33 boxes of papers, including those whose classification ranged from confidential to top secret.

In Joe Biden’s case, documents were found in November at the Penn Biden Center in Washington. Others were later found in his home in Wilmington, Del., some famously stored in the garage near his Corvette. Another few documents were found in Wilmington in mid-January, and more after that. CNN has reported, citing anonymous sources, that included were “10 classified documents including US intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics including Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom.” Some files bore the classification used for highly sensitive information obtained from intelligence sources.

Some of the Biden documents hail back to his days in the U.S. Senate, which makes him look like a serial absconder. The White House has said the material was inadvertently misplaced. Mr. Biden himself said on Jan. 10 that he was “surprised to learn” that there were any documents at the Penn office and doesn’t know their contents. It’s been noted he didn’t say anything about the documents in Wilmington. And the White House didn’t disclose the discovery of the original documents in November, or even when more were found in December. Mr. Biden also said “I think the American people know” he’d be serious about the handling of documents, and it struck me as soon as he said it: I don’t think they know that.

Here is a hypothesis from a sophisticated acquaintance with broad governmental experience: Joe Biden is “deeply sensitive about his reputation,” and having been proven wrong on various stands he’s taken in the past, he just might have decided to have documentation around him that showed his thinking was based on advice and insight from various government agencies, such as the intelligence community. Why not have nearby some documentation that might be used to buttress his past position? And that you might show around a bit, as needed and off the record.

That is conjecture. But the nature of these cases makes you want to guess what was really going on.

Special counsels have been appointed in the cases of Messrs. Trump and Biden. In the Mike Pence case, one doesn’t imagine another will be, because his assertion that the documents were taken inadvertently seems believable.

It’s funny how Mr. Trump figures in here, because he enjoys a special benefit. No one really ponders his motives because he’s . . . Donald Trump. There have been reports in the past that he sometimes took secret documents, tore them up and flushed them down the toilet. It was easy to assume after the FBI conducted its raid that Mr. Trump just wanted, in his screwball way, to show members of the Mar-a-Lago Club Kim Jong Un’s handwriting. He wanted to show them how much Mr. Kim loved him because everyone loved him and the world worked when he was in charge.

In any case it’s bad to be showing the world that U.S. leaders can be so derelict in their handling of top secret information. It makes the processes of our government look unprofessional, chaotic, ad hoc.

Congress is right to want to know exactly what’s in all those documents, what danger their cavalier handling posed, and how they wound up where they wound up. They should also look at the classification process itself. Do we overclassify or underclassify things?

As scandals go this is a worthy one—it’s not blown up nonsense over nothing. It won’t likely go away soon and may have serious political implications. It’s not bad to be showing the selfish, abusive or slovenly that if they break the laws on classified documents they will pay a price.

14. Ukraine Corruption Scandal Stokes Longstanding Aid Concerns in U.S.

Excerpt:

Mr. Taylor was optimistic, saying the latest scandal showed that Ukraine is more capable than ever of policing itself. He noted that some of the accusations of misconduct came from journalists, in an example of press freedom, and from special oversight bodies that had been created by Mr. Zelensky’s predecessor and that the Ukrainian leader had empowered.

Ukraine Corruption Scandal Stokes Longstanding Aid Concerns in U.S.

By Michael Crowley and Edward Wong

Jan. 27, 2023, 5:00 a.m. ET

The New York Times · by Edward Wong · January 27, 2023

A top State Department official said the ouster of several Ukrainian officials this week after corruption charges “sends a very strong signal.”

• Send any friend a story
• As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who campaigned for president as a bold corruption fighter, remains committed to that goal, according to U.S. officials.Credit...Ronald Wittek/EPA, via Shutterstock

Jan. 27, 2023, 5:00 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Since the start of the war in Ukraine, U.S. officials have watched with some anxiety as billions of American dollars flowed into the country, well aware of Kyiv’s history of political corruption and fearing that aid might be siphoned off for personal gain.

The ouster of several top officials from Ukraine’s government on Tuesday following accusations of government corruption has lent those concerns a fresh urgency. Although U.S. and European officials say there is no evidence that aid to Ukraine was stolen, even the perception of fraud would threaten political support for continued wartime assistance and for the postwar reconstruction effort that Western officials envision.

The allegations included reports that Ukraine’s military had agreed to pay inflated prices for food meant for its troops. A deputy prosecutor general was fired for reportedly borrowing an oligarch’s Mercedes to drive to Spain for a vacation, and a presidential aide accused of commandeering a Chevrolet Tahoe donated to help with evacuations was forced out.

Rather than betray alarm, however, U.S. officials insist the drama shows that President Volodymyr Zelensky is committed to fighting corruption.

The shake-up in Kyiv “sends a very strong signal to others who would try to rip off this war effort and is important for the future of Ukraine,” Victoria Nuland, the under secretary of state for political affairs, testified on Thursday during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Ukraine.

“We have been very clear that we need to see, as they prosecute this war, the anti-corruption steps, including good corporate governance and judicial measures, move forward,” she added.

Ms. Nuland was responding to a question from Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, who said he was worried that corruption in Ukraine’s government could be “a kind of cancer eating away at support that they need from everyone in the world.”

In an episode whose details remain murky, Mr. Zelensky in July fired his top prosecutor, intelligence chief and other senior officials for reasons he said were related to treasonous ties with Russia. But to the relief of Western and Ukrainian leaders, corruption has otherwise not been a significant factor in the war.

Mr. Zelensky is a former comedian who campaigned as a political outsider capable of stamping out the culture of corruption that has gripped his country since its independence from the Soviet Union. In his inaugural address in May 2019, he said that Ukrainian politicians had created “a country of opportunities — the opportunities to bribe, steal and pluck the resources.”

A 2021 “Corruption Perception Index” by the watchdog group Transparency International that ranked 180 countries for their perceived level of public-sector corruption, with No. 1 being the least apparently corrupt, put Ukraine at No. 122. Concern about corruption was second only to the Russian threat in the Biden administration’s prewar policy toward Kyiv. In 2015, when he was vice president, Mr. Biden pleaded with Ukraine’s parliament to stamp out “the pervasive poison of cronyism, corruption, and kleptocracy.”

The State of the War

• Military Aid: Germany and the United States announced they would send battle tanks to Ukraine, a decision that came after weeks of tense back-channel negotiations between Western officials. But it may be months before the tanks rumble across the battlefield.
• Corruption Scandal: After a number of allegations of government corruption, several top Ukrainian officials were fired, in the biggest upheaval in President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government since Russia’s invasion began 11 months ago.
• An Expanding Cemetery: Recent satellite imagery and video footage of a growing burial ground offer a rare look at combat fatalities sustained by the Wagner mercenary group during the war.

While attention has focused on the possible theft or diversion of American weapons, U.S. officials take comfort in the fact that Ukraine has an urgent incentive to throw every available armament against the invading Russians.

In addition, the United States requires Ukrainian officials to log all military equipment they receive, track its progress to the front lines, and report ammunition expenditure and any damage or destruction of weapons, a senior defense official said last fall. Defense Department officials have trained Ukrainian troops in methods to help keep track of American arms, and U.S. personnel conduct inspections inside the country where security conditions allow.

Celeste Wallander, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said at Thursday’s hearing that the administration “has not seen credible evidence of any diversion of U.S.-provided weapons outside of Ukraine.” She added that the Pentagon was using oversight “mechanisms that go above and beyond our standard practices.”

U.S. officials take comfort in the fact that Ukraine has an urgent incentive to use every armament it gets from foreign donors against the invading Russians.Credit...Ivor Prickett for The New York Times

But U.S. officials fear that humanitarian aid, and especially direct financial aid, is more at risk of embezzlement or theft.

The largest type of cash infusion into Ukraine’s government from the United States — $13 billion of it so far — is called direct budgetary support. It is approved by Congress, administered by the United States Agency for International Development, and distributed by the World Bank. Ukrainian officials ultimately decide how to allocate the money.

The U.S. agency says the budgetary aid funds basic government services like hospitals and schools, along with emergency responders and firefighters, and supports programs for needy, disabled and internally displaced people. It also helps provide housing and subsidies for utilities as Russia assaults the country’s infrastructure and energy grid.

Erin McKee, an assistant USAID administrator, told the Senate panel that the agency used “extraordinary measures” to track that funding.

The agency has a contract with the accounting firm Deloitte to have a team work in Kyiv with the Ukrainian government to monitor and audit the aid money. Ms. McKee said the team was in Ukraine this week.

Last fall, Deloitte completed an audit of money flows from the World Bank to the state treasury account for the Ukrainian government budget and found no “significant areas of concern,” USAID said. Deloitte has since begun an audit of money flows from the treasury account to recipients, the agency said.

The agency also said it has continued to give aid to anti-corruption and rule-of-law programs in Ukraine during the war, as it has done for years. That includes support for independent media organizations and civil society groups.

Direct budgetary aid for Ukraine supports programs for needy, disabled and internally displaced people. It also helps provide housing and subsidies for utilities as Russia assaults the country’s infrastructure and energy grid.Credit...Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Ukrainian officials have said they are aware of the need for transparency on expenditures, declarations that American lawmakers say appear to be sincere.

For now, the Ukrainian leader appears to enjoy the confidence of key U.S. officials and lawmakers from both parties. On Thursday, the Senate committee’s Democratic chairman, Bob Menendez, commended Mr. Zelensky and his cabinet “for their serious oversight plans for U.S. and international assistance,” and said that anti-corruption measures implemented before Russia’s invasion last February had been effective.

“It demonstrates what President Zelensky has told us: that there will be zero tolerance for fraud or waste,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday, shortly after returning from a visit to Kyiv.

“All of the scrutiny and oversight so far has disclosed no fraud or waste, no misappropriation of any of the military or humanitarian assistance that have been provided so far,” Mr. Blumenthal added.

Even before this week’s dismissals from Ukraine’s government, however, some prominent Republicans had expressed concern about the possible misuse of U.S. aid.

America must ensure that resources “don’t go to underwrite a corrupt Ukrainian government,” former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a November appearance on Fox News. However, he has also said the United States should give Ukraine the weapons it needs to end the war.

With other Republicans growing skeptical of Ukraine aid, their congressional leaders say they will place even more emphasis on oversight and accountability.

Some congressional Republicans pushed unsuccessfully last year for the creation of a special inspector general modeled on the one whose office issued scathing indictments of wasted U.S. reconstruction aid in Afghanistan. Currently, inspectors general at the State Department, Department of Defense, and USAID are jointly conducting oversight as part of an informal working group.

Sarah Chayes, a corruption expert who has studied the embezzlement of wartime aid, said it was important that aid packages budget money for evaluation and monitoring. She also recommended having intelligence agencies compile information on the personal networks of Ukrainian officials.

And the United States should work with civil society groups experienced in anti-corruption efforts, to bolster the role of “citizen watchdogs.”

“It’s somewhat risky to rely on a government exclusively to police its own corruption,” she said.

William Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, said that policing corruption during a war is very difficult. But he credited Mr. Zelensky for promoting effective reforms before the Russian invasion.

When he took office, Mr. Zelensky said that Ukrainian politicians had created “a country of opportunities — the opportunities to bribe, steal and pluck the resources.”

Mr. Taylor said that Mr. Zelensky had strong incentives to keep corruption in check. At stake are not only his own public standing in Ukraine and Western aid to fight Russia, but also Ukraine’s hopes of joining the European Union. E.U. membership, which is a high priority for Mr. Zelensky’s government, will require the country to meet the union’s high anti-corruption standards.

And even after the war ends one day, Ukraine will remain desperate for money to rebuild its shattered country. Group of 7 officials have begun to sketch the outlines of a postwar reconstruction effort that might cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Some Western officials say they worry most about the potential for misuse of such enormous sums, particularly if the immediate Russian threat has abated.

“Anti-corruption is going to be a condition for successful reconstruction,” Mr. Taylor said.

Mr. Taylor was optimistic, saying the latest scandal showed that Ukraine is more capable than ever of policing itself. He noted that some of the accusations of misconduct came from journalists, in an example of press freedom, and from special oversight bodies that had been created by Mr. Zelensky’s predecessor and that the Ukrainian leader had empowered.

“The institutions worked,” Mr. Taylor said.

The New York Times · by Edward Wong · January 27, 2023

15. A Medal of Honor Recipient's Speech at the Pentagon Is Going Viral on TikTok

​Some irony here. Something so important as this great American's speech goes viral on a platform that is a threat to national security.

A Medal of Honor Recipient's Speech at the Pentagon Is Going Viral on TikTok

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · January 26, 2023

"We don't want war. But if you want war with the United States of America, there's one thing I can promise you, so help me God: Someone else will raise your sons and daughters."

It might be one of the most badass things anyone has ever said, and when combined with the music of Metro Boomin, it's got TikTok-ers ready to enlist.

"This vid almost made me want to sign up," said TikTok user Joaquin.

"I almost Googled a recruitment center just off this," said Jorge L.

"Single-handedly just convinced me to enlist in March," said FantaMane.

The line was spoken by Medal of Honor recipient Army Staff Sgt. David Bellavia. He received the Silver Star for actions he took during a house raid at the Second Battle of Fallujah during the Iraq War in 2004. His Silver Star was upgraded to the Medal of Honor and presented by President Donald Trump at the White House on June 25, 2019.

In August of that year, Bellavia gave a speech at the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes. In the speech, he talked about America's warrior class and those who died on the mission in Fallujah that day. The excerpt used in the minute-long TikTok video, called "If the US Military sampled MetroBoomin," came toward the end of Bellavia's speech.

It's a speech that's on par or better than any motivational speech ever written by speechwriters, generals or even Hollywood screenwriters.

"Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS, al-Qaida. They may be watching this right now. Our military should not be mistaken for a cable news gabfest show. We don't care what you look like. We don't care who you voted for, who you worship, what you worship, who you love. It doesn't matter if your dad left you millions when he died or if you knew who your father was. We have been honed into a machine of lethal moving parts that you would be wise to avoid if you know what's good for you.

We will not be intimidated. We will not back down. We've seen war. We don't want war. But if you want war with the United States of America, there's one thing I can promise you, so help me God: Someone else will raise your sons and daughters."

From there, the video goes into a quick few stanzas of a Metro Boomin song. The video, made by Ohio-based TikTok user JHaleProductions, has garnered 7.9 million views and more than 13,000 comments, mostly about how "hard" or "cold" the quote is and how this is the kind of recruiting video the Army needs to make.

(TikTok)

It's enough to make one wonder whether the Army should give a chunk of its $600 million advertising budget to Metro Boomin and some TikTok-ers and produce the kind of Army ads the people (apparently) really want to see. The app has been banned on government devices and is facing restrictions in most states, but no one among the Army’s target market seems to care.

View the viral TikTok on your web browser by clicking here.

-- Blake Stilwell can be reached at blake.stilwell@military.com. He can also be found on Twitter @blakestilwell or on Facebook.

Want to Learn More About Military Life?

Whether you're thinking of joining the military, looking for post-military careers or keeping up with military life and benefits, Military.com has you covered. Subscribe to Military.com to have military news, updates and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · January 26, 2023

16. Biden's promise to send 31 Abrams could take up to a YEAR

Biden's promise to send 31 Abrams could take up to a YEAR

We don't have enough tanks to send to Ukraine, Pentagon admits: Biden's promise to send 31 Abrams could take up to a YEAR - because the US has to buy more

• Biden announced US would provide Abrams tanks as 'continued support' 
• It follows Germany's announcement of its plan to send 14 Leopard 2 tanks 
• But the Pentagon doesn't have excess Abrams tanks to provide 

By GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 18:14 EST, 26 January 2023 | UPDATED: 19:31 EST, 26 January 2023

Daily Mail · by Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor For Dailymail.com · January 26, 2023

The Biden administration administration's plan to send Ukraine a battalion of lethal Abrams tanks will be hampered by the production timeframe and the Pentagon's insistence that it does not have any in surplus, the Defense Department revealed Thursday.

Unlike some of the high-tech weaponry the U.S. has been shipping to Ukraine as part of a multi-billion effort to deter Russia's invasion, the U.S. military does not 'have these tanks available in excess in our U.S. stocks,' deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh' told reporters.

The means it could take months before the tanks, which President Biden called the most capable in the world, reach their destination. It is anyone's guess what the state of play in the war will be at that point. The one-year anniversary of Russia's brutal invasion is approaching.

'These things are going to require training maintenance, sustainment, that is going to take a very long time to also train in Ukrainians on,' Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh Singh told reporters Thursday, a day after Biden announced the transfer.

'These things are going to require training maintenance, sustainment,' Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters. Since the military says it doesn't have any excess Abrams tanks, it will take about a year before they make it to Ukraine. President Biden announced the transfer Wednesday

'We took that into account. That’s why we are using the USAI capability in order to procure these tanks for the Ukrainians,' she said, referencing the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Officials said it could take up to a year before the the Ukrainian military is using Abrams tanks on the ground to try to retake territory captured by the Russians – with fears of a new Russian offensive this spring.

The government will buy the tanks new from defense contractor General Dynamics, which makes the tanks in its Ohio plant. As with other sophisticated military hardware, the government will have to make sure it is not providing certain ultra-sophisticated components to keep them out of enemy hands. The White House has said there are no indications U.S. equipment provided to Ukraine has made its way to Russia or adversaries.

The U.S. will be providing its more advanced M1A2 Abrams model.

The tank runs on a gas turbine engine, which provides speed and efficiency. But it also requires training, and the U.S. plans to train Ukrainians in a location yet to be determined on how to operate them.

Russian launched what Ukraine called a 'massive' volley of missile strikes on Thursday, the day after the announcement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky renewed his call for even more weaponry, including fighter jets.

'We have to unlock the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine, it is important for us to expand our cooperation in artillery, we have to achieve the supply of aircraft to Ukraine. And this is a dream. And this is a task,' he said.

Biden announced Wednesday that the U.S. is sending an entire battalion of 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, yielding to President Volodymyr Zelensky's push for heavy armor to counter Russia's nearly yearlong invasion.

The U.S. will supply highly lethal M1A2 Abrams tanks, the more sophisticated version, to Ukraine. But it could take up to a year for them to get there

The announcement followed a complicated diplomatic dance that has seen Germany announce its own decision to send 14 tanks to Kiev, with more on the way.

The US is also providing 500 armored vehicles as part of the package.

Biden called the M1 Abrams tanks 'the most capable tanks in the world' and said they would 'enhance Ukraine's capacity to defend its territory to achieve its strategic objectives.'

He added that the Ukrainian military would use the armor to 'liberate their land.'

President Joe Biden announced the US would send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. He called them 'The most capable tanks in the world'

The president also cautioned that the move was 'going to take time' – a reference to the complex training involved with the weapons system, which he described as 'extremely complex to operate and maintain.'

'Germany has really stepped up,' he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has asked repeatedly for tanks as the next phase of the war in looms, but U.S. President Joe Biden has adopted a cautious approach

Biden responded to a question about whether Germany forced him to change his mind on sending the tanks.

'Germany didn’t force me to change my mind. We wanted to make sure we were all together. That’s what we were going to do all along, and that’s what we’re doing right now,' the president said.

After the president spoke, security spokesman Adm. John Kirby pushed back on claims the U.S. had done a turnaround to accommodate Germany. 'Tanks were never off the table,' Kirby said. He said it would take months to get the tanks to Ukraine, since the U.S. doesn't currently have any in excess stock that aren't being used. He said training requirements wouldn't slow the process, at least not by much.

'Today we’ll be announcing that the United States will send 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, which is the equivalent of one Ukrainian tank battalion,' a senior administration official told reporters on a call Wednesday.

The Pentagon is also providing eight M88 recovery vehicles, to help keep the Abrams tanks 'up and running,' according to a senior administration official.

The tanks come as the US is stepping up its 'combined forces' training for Ukrainian forces outside of Ukrainian territory – allowing them to better integrate air, ground, and armored forces in a more sophisticated form of warfare.

The Biden administration is sending Abrams M1 tanks to Ukraine

Biden called the Abrams tanks 'the most capable tanks in the world.' Here US Army Sgt. 1st Class Corey Troxell, fires blank rounds through a .50 caliber machine gun mounted to an M1A2 Abrams tank during a simulated battle drill

Brigadier General Pat Ryer, the press secretary for the Pentagon, told CNN when asked if fighter jets will be made available to Zelensky, he said that nothing is off the table.

'We're going to continue to adapt, to ensure that Ukraine has the support they need to be successful, not only in defending their territory, but also taking back their sovereign territory.'

The latest lethal aid package 'enables them … to retake territory,' said the senior administration official. The moves come despite the Kremlin blasting it as an 'extremely dangerous' decision and a 'blatant provocation' one year after it invaded its neighbor.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his country was sending Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine

Tanks for these: This combination of file photographs created on January 25, 2023, shows (TOP L/BOTTOM R): A British Challenger tank, a French Leclerc tank, a Polish German Leopard tank, and a US Abrams tank

The president spoke with President Macron of France, Chancellor Scholz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, and Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom 'as part of our close coordination on support for Ukraine,' according to the White House.

'It is the most capable tank in the world, but it’s also the most sophisticated,' said an administration official, noting the training and supply chain issues that come with it.

'That will significantly strengthen their combat capabilities and demonstrates also the unity and resolve of NATO allies and partners in providing support to Ukraine,' NATO Secretary Gen. Jens Stoltenberg said of Germany's decision, speaking to CNN Wednesday, also stressing the ability to improve Ukraine's ability to retake territory.

The US and allies are also providing anti-tank weapons and ammunition. A Ukrainian service member fires a RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher in Zaporizhzhia Region, Ukraine, January 23, 2023

Germany announced that it will send German-built Leopard 2 battle tanks, with an initial company of 14 vehicles. The aim would be to ultimately provide two battalions worth, which would amount to 80 to 100. The Leopards are widely used in western militaries, and other countries have been seeking Germany's authorization to send their own.

The British government announced this month it would send its own squadron of 14 Challenger 2 battle tanks, while the Polish government has been girding to send 14 of its Leopard 2s, after seeking Germany's approval. Berlin gave the green light on Wednesday.

Last week, the UK said it would send Challenger 2 tanks (pictured above) to Ukraine

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday called the moves by the US and Germany 'long overdue.'

'Now that Berlin is taking a step, I hope that other European countries with tanks in their inventory will move expeditiously to send them to Ukraine,' he said on the Senate floor.

Last week, the U.K. announced it was sending Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine, but that did not spur the U.S. or Germany to immediately follow suit.

Daily Mail · by Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor For Dailymail.com · January 26, 2023

17. Could the U.S. Military Run Out of Artillery Ammo Due to Ukraine War?

If so, I think we need to be worried about conducting our own large scale combat operations (LSCO).

Could the U.S. Military Run Out of Artillery Ammo Due to Ukraine War?

19fortyfive.com · by Peter Suciu · January 26, 2023

Does the U.S. military have an artillery ‘ammo’ crisis on its hands due to the Ukraine war? The “Shell Crisis of 1915” was so great it led to a political crisis in the UK. It occurred due to the British Army expending far more ordnance along the Western Front during the initial stages of the First World War than domestic production could keep up with, and it resulted in a failed British offensive.

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is now taking measures to ensure it won’t face a similar problem due to the amount of ordnance that has been supplied to Ukraine. This week, the U.S. Army announced it was moving to expand the production capacity of the widely employed 155mm artillery rounds.

According to a recent Pentagon report, the United States had sent Ukraine more than a million rounds – part of the $27.8 billion in security assistance provided to Ukraine since the start of the Biden Administration.

However, Ukraine had been expending, on average, some 3,000 rounds daily, while over the summer, there were reports that Kyiv’s forces were firing as much as 5,000 to 6,000 rounds a day. That rate of fire depleted such stockpiles in just over 100 days.

Wear and Tear

In fact, as previously reported, the artillery duels with Russia have been so great that the barrels of some artillery pieces have been wearing out.

As a result of the shortage of ammunition and wear to the weapons, Ukraine’s forces had resorted to relying on older 105mm guns. Those older weapons also couldn’t handle such a rate of fire.

Ramping Up Production

Prior to the war, the U.S. production capacity for 155mm shells was around 14,400 monthly, DefenseNews reported. The U.S. is now hoping to produce 90,000 shells a month – which still won’t meet the demand, but it would be a vast improvement if the Pentagon continues to send the artillery ordnance to Ukraine.

Currently, 155mm rounds are almost exclusively produced at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAAP) in Des Moines County, Iowa. Established in 1941, the facility is part of the U.S. Army Joint Munitions Command. Production at the plant stopped at the end of World War II in 1945 but resumed in 1949.

The Army is now working with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD OTS) to expand production capacity at Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Pennsylvania and a neighboring facility.

The Army is also under contract with GD OTS to stand up another plant to do the same work at a facility in Garland, Texas.

This comes even as NATO officials have discussed the possibility of resuming the production of artillery ammunition for Soviet-era systems in Slovakia, as Ukraine continues to operate a vast number of such weapons. Plants in Snina and Dubnica nad Váhom have the capacity for the required production. The Czech Republic and Bulgaria have also been named as nations that could aid in producing ordnance for Soviet-made platforms.

Currently, about a third of Europe’s production of 155mm artillery ordnance is handled by the Czech-based CSG. It now produces about 80,000 to 100,000 shells annually but has sought to expand that number to 150,000.

Author Experience and Expertise: A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

19fortyfive.com · by Peter Suciu · January 26, 2023

18. The Army is readying a new directed energy weapon to swat drone swarms out of the sky

I hope this works out. It should be game changing.

The Army is readying a new directed energy weapon to swat drone swarms out of the sky

The Army is moving forward with a new microwave weapon to help provide air defense against incoming enemy drone swarms.

BY JARED KELLER | PUBLISHED JAN 26, 2023 9:06 AM

taskandpurpose.com · by Jared Keller · January 26, 2023

The Army is moving forward with a new directed energy weapon to help provide air defense against swarms of incoming enemy drones.

Defense contractor Epirus, Inc. announced on Monday that it had received a $66.1 million contract from the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) to develop prototypes of its Leonidas high-powered microwave short-range air defense system.

Epirus will “rapidly deliver several prototype systems” to the Army this year “with options to acquire additional support services” as part of the service’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High-Power Microwave Program (IFPC-HPM), the company said in a statement.

The IFPC-HPM system is intended to provide a ground-based direct-energy weapon that can “acquire, track, engage, and defeat” all manner of incoming threats, from cruise missiles and rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) threats to incoming unmanned aerial systems, according to the Army’s fiscal year 2023 budget documents.

Subscribe to Task & Purpose Today. Get the latest military news, entertainment, and gear in your inbox daily.

While the IFPC’s other directed energy counterpart, the 300-kW High-Energy Laser, that’s been under development for the last several years, is intended to provide point defense against incoming threats like missiles, the microwave-based HPM is optimized to disable multiple incoming UAVs simultaneously that might otherwise slip through a conventional base defense grid.

As Breaking Defense aptly put it in a 2020 article: “If anti-drone lasers are like sniper rifles, microwave weapons are like shotguns full of birdshot.”

According to the Army, the IFPC-HPM system will provide “much needed protection against adversarial UAS swarms capable of targeting and overwhelming U.S. and allied air defense systems,” the service wrote in budget documents.

The Army had requested $131.09 million for fiscal year 2023 to advanced its IFPC efforts, according to budget documents, with $43 million reserved for the delivery of an “operationally effective [HPM] rapid prototype capability in the near- to mid-term.”

Epirus’ third-generation Leonidas system, which features a ruggedized design installed on a military-grade trailer system, was demonstrated as a HPM Counter-Unmanned Aerial System event in April 2022, according to Army Technology, a defense information portal.

“Time and time again, we’ve seen that current air defense systems are ill-equipped to tackle the threat of autonomous drone swarms.” Epirus CEO Ken Bedingfield said in a statement. “As the threat environment continues to evolve, so, too, will our capabilities, ensuring the U.S. Army is equipped with effective countermeasures to near-term and over-the-horizon electronic threats for decades to come.”

It’s unclear where the Leonidas system’s current power stands as Epirus has not publicly disclosed details regarding its output. But according to the Congressional Research Service, the service has said that its final IFPC-HPM solution “leverages previous HPM technology demonstrations and experimentation campaigns,” according to budget documents.

Those previous HPM campaigns explicitly include the Air Force’s Tactical High Power Microwave Operational Responder (THOR), service’s drone-killing base defense system which underwent testing “in a real world setting” in Africa back in 2020.

The surge in counter-drone swarm technology among U.S. forces is unsurprising. In the years since the Islamic State group began employing cheap, commercially-available drones to drop bombs on coalition forces across Iraq and Syria, the threat has evolved so far that retired Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr., former head of U.S. Central Command, repeatedly described drones as the biggest threat to U.S. troops since insurgents began using roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And it’s not just the threat of militant groups using drones that U.S. troops have to worry about. In the year since the Russian military invaded Ukraine, conventional militaries have also hastened the adoption of both airborne and waterborne drones to attack their adversaries, with Ukrainian drone swarms proving especially effective on the Crimean peninsula in recent months, while Russia has used Iranian-made Shahed-136 to bombard major cities.

Indeed, it’s those Shahed drones that the U.S. may have in mind with the development of these microwave weapons. In late November, the U.S. 5th Fleet confirmed that the drones that attacked an oil tanker off the coast of Oman weeks earlier were in fact Iranian-made Shaheds.

Backup drone defenses from the Leonidas may be a long time coming, however. The Army doesn’t plan on transitioning the IFPC-HPM prototypes to a program of record for another few years. In the meantime, soldiers are already training hard for future operations that involve going head-to-head with an adversary’s drone swarms.

The latest on Task & Purpose

• The Navy wiped the ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ director’s camera after he ‘captured something I wasn’t supposed to capture’
• Marine under investigation after viral video showed altercation with hotel staff
• Fighter pilot to receive Navy Cross more than 70 years after classified dogfight with 7 Soviet jets
• 2 Navy commanders fired in one day
• The Marines have a new ship-killing weapons system to counter China

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here.

taskandpurpose.com · by Jared Keller · January 26, 2023

19. Wagner Group: Putin's Mercenaries in Ukraine Are Monsters

Wagner Group: Putin's Mercenaries in Ukraine Are Monsters

19fortyfive.com · by Stavros Atlamazoglou · January 26, 2023

Last week, the U.S. designated the infamous Wagner Group private military company as Transnational Criminal Organization.

(Subscribe to Our YouTube Channel Here. 19FortyFive publishes original videos every day.)

The sanctions come at a point in time when Moscow is heavily relying on tens of thousands of mercenaries to achieve its goals in Ukraine.

Who Is the Wagner Group?

Under Executive Order Number 13581, the Department of Treasury designed Wagner Group as a “significant Transnational Criminal Organization.”

The White House is going a step further and will be imposing additional sanctions on the logistical and support networks that Wagner Group is using to support its operations around the world.

The Russian private military company is active in the Middle East, Africa, and even South America.

“With these actions — and there will be more to come — our message to any company that is considering providing support to Wagner is simply this: Wagner is a criminal organization that is. . .committing widespread atrocities and human rights abuses, and we will work relentlessly to identify, disrupt, expose, and target those who are assisting Wagner,” National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said in a press statement.

According to the U.S. Intelligence Community, there are approximately 50,000 Wagner Group mercenaries in Ukraine fighting.

The majority of fighters are convicts who were recruited from prisons and penal colonies with the promise of freedom if they completed a six-month tour of duty in Ukraine.

But around one in every five Wagner Group mercenaries is a seasoned contractor, usually with prior military experience.

Indeed, there are even some Afghan commandos that the U.S. trained and advised in the fight against the Taliban, serving with the Wagner Group on the frontlines.

But the mercenaries have been suffering heavy casualties too.

But the U.S. government will be taking additional steps to curb the influence and operation of the infamous private military company.

The Treasury Department is also targeting arms transfers, such as artillery shells, small arms ammunition, and rifles, from North Korea.

Wagner Group’s Role and Influence on the Russian Campaign

Wanger Group wasn’t always as influential as it is now.

At the beginning of the war, the role of the private military company in the Russian campaign was fairly limited.

But as the Russian military started faltering after several setbacks all across the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin turned to his close associate Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader and backer of Wagner Group.

Steadily, the influence and role of the private military company in the Russian campaign increased.

Wagner Group reached the peak of influence in the fight for the town of Bakhmut in the Donbas.

For the first time in a large-scale operation, the Kremlin turned to the mercenaries to take the town, leaving the Russian military in a supporting role.

Since then, Wagner Group has been leading the fight in the area, achieving some small victories, such as the capture of the small town of Soledar to the north of Bakhmut, but at the cost of horrible casualties.

However, Wagner Group’s star might soon be waning as an increasingly alarmed Russian military is seeking to re-establish its authority over the planning and conduct of the war.

Expert Biography: A 19FortyFive Defense and National Security Columnist, Stavros Atlamazoglou is a seasoned defense journalist specializing in special operations, a Hellenic Army veteran (national service with the 575th Marine Battalion and Army HQ), and a Johns Hopkins University graduate.

19fortyfive.com · by Stavros Atlamazoglou · January 26, 2023

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Senior Advisor, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com