Quotes of the Day:

“Although I am an advocate of military discipline, I am opposed to the Prussian type of discipline, which makes a man a machine rather than an individual. One reason the American soldier will always be superior to that kind of soldier is that he does not obey blindly, but with intelligent cooperation, interpreting his order by his own judgment."  

– Colonel Warren L Mabrey, US Army, 1921.

“No matter how hard you train, Somebody will train harder. No matter how hard you run, Somebody will run harder. No matter how much you want it, Somebody will want it more. I am Somebody." 

– Steve Prefontaine.

“I cannot help, fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.” 

– Alexis de Tocqueville.

1. Chinese intelligence agency is using AI to track foreign spies

2. China Wants to Move Ahead, but Xi Jinping Is Looking to the Past

3. Russia covered up and undercounted true human cost of floodings after dam explosion, AP investigation finds

4. The Marines Transformed to Take On China. Will They Be Ready for Everything Else?

5. Hostage Mia Schem Reveals She Was Held Captive by Gaza Family in Bombshell First Interview: ‘Everyone There Is a Terrorist’

6. Russia’s military wives emerge as wild card to Putin’s triumphal mood

7. Overseas But Paying the Price: Army Ends Policy that Allowed Soldiers to Store Belongings While Deployed

8. Russell Hamler of WWII Merrill’s Marauders Dies at 99

9. US allies reluctant on Red Sea task force

10. Biden must take a tougher stance on Iran and the Houthis

11. New York Times sues Microsoft, ChatGPT maker OpenAI over copyright infringement

12. Biden needs to strike back hard against Houthis to protect Red Sea — and US influence

13. Ukraine Doesn’t Need All Its Territory to Defeat Putin

14. The Army’s first-ever lead special trial counsel just got fired for behaving ethically

15. Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Offices of Special Trial Counsel

16.  Is US military power reaching its limit? The American navy is losing control over the high seas

17. Don’t Give Up on a Better Russia – An Opposition Activist in Moscow on How His Country Can Change

18. Russia warns Japan over providing Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine

19. Shortly Before Hamas Attacked, a Warning Arrived. What Happened at This Crucial Outpost?

20. China struggles to repurpose the lessons of the Pearl Harbor attack

21.  Statement of Support for Former C4ADS Analyst Nicole Morgret (On China Sanctions)

22. Fact Sheet: Department of Defense Concludes 'Decisive Year' in the Indo-Pacific Region

23. Alliances Are Back at the Center of Power

1. Chinese intelligence agency is using AI to track foreign spies

Instant dossiers by AI.

Chinese intelligence agency is using AI to track foreign spies

How China is using AI to hunt American SPIES: Beijing's shadowy Ministry of State Security deploys powerful software to create instant dossiers on US visitors to weed out enemy agents in 'new Cold War' with the CIA

• China's Ministry of State Security is the country's most sophisticated spy agency
• MSS is using facial recognition and AI to track American agents in Beijing
• China has also stepped up recruitment of agents, including US citizens 

By KEITH GRIFFITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 22:56 EST, 27 December 2023 | UPDATED: 02:54 EST, 28 December 2023

Daily Mail · by Keith Griffith For Dailymail.com · December 28, 2023

China's premier intelligence agency is using AI to track American spies and others in Beijing's embassy district, according to a new report highlighting the agency's growing Cold War-style rivalry with the CIA.

The Ministry of State Security (MSS) was once overshadowed by Chinese military intelligence units, but has grown in reputation and prowess to become the country's top spy agency.

Powerful and well-funded, the MSS combines the CIA's mission of foreign surveillance with the FBI's mandate of domestic counterintelligence, all in one overtly political agency explicitly devoted to protecting China's Communist Party.

The MSS is now using AI and facial recognition to track foreign diplomats, military officers and intelligence operatives in Beijing's embassy district, according to a New York Times report on Wednesday citing US officials and a person with knowledge of the matter.

The system creates instant dossiers on every person of interest in the area, tracking their movements and contacts, and can be used to identify their networks and potential vulnerabilities, the Times reported.

China 's premier intelligence agency is using AI to track American spies and others with surveillance cameras in Beijing 's embassy district, according to a new report (file photo)

Chen Yixin, a longtime aide to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, leads the MSS and has pushed to raise the profile of the notoriously secretive agency

A spokesperson for China's embassy in Washington DC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from DailyMail.com on Wednesday evening.

China's advanced spy-tracking program underscores the prominent role of advanced technology in the emerging rivalry between the MSS and the CIA.

'For China in particular, exploiting the existing technology or trade secrets of others has become a popular shortcut encouraged by the government,' Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center in DC, told the Times.

'The urgency and intensity of technological espionage have increased significantly.'

While China has long sought to pilfer the advanced technologies and trade secrets of other countries, the CIA is now pouring increased resources into gathering information on Chinese advances in AI and quantum computing, according to the Times.

David Cohen, the CIA's deputy director, told the newspaper that the agency has ramped up its focus on collecting information on Chinese technological advances.

'We've been counting tanks and understanding the capability of missiles for longer than we have been as sharply focused on the capability of semiconductors or AI algorithms or biotech equipment,' Cohen told the Times.

The former head of the MSS, Chen Wenqing, was promoted to China's Politburo in October 2022, the first spymaster to be elevated to such a high-level role in decades.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, bottom center, and senior members of the government are seen at the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in October 2022

A Chinese policeman patrols outside the US embassy in Beijing in a file photo

His replacement as head of the MSS, Chen Yixin, is a longtime aide to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and has pushed to raise the profile of the notoriously secretive agency.

Unlike the CIA or MI6, the MSS still does not have a public-facing website or any public contact information.

But Chen has launched social media accounts for MSS, including one on WeChat where the agency proclaimed: 'The United States' multifaceted obstruction, containment and suppression will only make China more battle hardened and self-reliant.'

In addition to its high-tech focus, the MSS has also been increasing its efforts to recruit American citizens as spies.

In one such case, American college student Glenn Shriver was recruited while studying abroad in Shanghai, by MSS handlers who offered him cash and encouraged him to apply for jobs at the US State Department and CIA.

Shriver pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit espionage for a foreign government and was sentenced to a four-year prison term in 2011.

He later admitted he was motivated by 'greed' and filmed a public service video for the FBI, imploring other American students not to fall into the same trap that he had.

American college student Glenn Shriver (left) was recruited while studying abroad in Shanghai, while Kun Shan Chun (right), a naturalized US citizen, was approached while working at the FBI with a top-secret clearance

The case, which garnered little media attention at the time, set off alarm bells in the intelligence community, as it showed Beijing's growing ambition to recruit young Americans without ethnic or family ties to China.

In another case, Kun Shan Chun, a naturalized US citizen, was sentenced to 24 months in prison in March 2016 for acting as an agent of China.

Chun, an FBI employee with a top-secret clearance, handed the Chinese government information about FBI surveillance methods, and details of an FBI agent's travel arrangements.

Last year, the first Chinese government intelligence officer to ever be extradited to the United States to stand trial was sentenced to 20 years in prison for espionage crimes and attempting to steal trade secrets.

Yanjun Xu, 42, was sentenced at the federal court in Cincinnati in November 2022 after he targeted American aviation companies to solicit trade secrets and recruited employees to travel to China on behalf of the Chinese government.

The 42-year-old had been working for the MSS when he was arrested during a business trip to Belgium in 2018.

Daily Mail · by Keith Griffith For Dailymail.com · December 28, 2023

2. China Wants to Move Ahead, but Xi Jinping Is Looking to the Past

Excerpts:

What Xi wants

Xi doesn’t envision a full return to the Mao era. Obsessed with order, he doesn’t want a repeat of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The mass movement launched by Mao to root out capitalists and assert his authority led to years of bloodshed—something few expect today.

Xi’s vision was made clear at a high-level meeting this month to set China’s economic agenda for 2024. The confab placed priority on developing a “modern industrial system”—party-speak for a state-led economy in which Beijing directs resources to preferred sectors, such as chipmaking or artificial intelligence.

It also called for strengthening “economic propaganda and public opinion guidance” to promote a positive narrative of China’s economy.

Xi’s state-led approach has benefited some sectors such as electric vehicles, with Chinese-made EVs—which benefit from government subsidies—now being sold globally. It also could help wash out speculative behavior in the private sector that, if left unaddressed, could create bigger financial risks for China.

Some Chinese support Xi’s policies, because they think the country needs to accept hardships to put growth on a more sustainable track and prepare for possible conflict with the U.S. Beijing has acknowledged some economic challenges and vowed to increase government spending and monetary support for the economy.

Yet to many in China, the directives at this month’s policy meetings conjure up bad memories of Mao-style campaigns, and how officials back then covered up bad news when centrally planned economic initiatives failed.

...

Mao-era tactics resurrected

Faced with growing economic headwinds and challenges to order, Xi is doubling down on Mao-style control, embracing a Mao-era tool as a way to ensure national security.

The practice, called the “Fengqiao experience,” is named after a town in eastern China that gained national fame in the early 1960s when Mao praised the way its officials mobilized people to identify and punish so-called enemies of the proletariat—capitalists, traditionalists and the like.

People were encouraged to report on one another, with husbands informing on wives and children on their parents, leading to some of the most brutal aspects of the Cultural Revolution. After that tumultuous period, the “Fengqiao experience” faded into history.

Xi is trying to revive aspects of it to mobilize people to fix problems at the local level before they lead to widespread social unrest.

China Wants to Move Ahead, but Xi Jinping Is Looking to the Past

As China’s leader embraces more elements of Mao Zedong’s rule, its people are confronting a more uncertain future

https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-wants-to-move-ahead-but-xi-jinping-is-looking-to-the-past-cf2e076b?mod=hp_lead_pos9

By Lingling WeiFollow

Updated Dec. 28, 2023 12:00 am ET

A song called “Tomorrow Will Be Better” became a sensation in mainland China in the 1980s, when the nation was emerging from the poverty and turmoil of Mao Zedong’s rule.

Its inspirational lyrics, which exhorted listeners to “look upward for the wings in the sky,” came to represent a generation that was starting to believe in a brighter future.

Now people in China are listening to the song again—but for a very different reason. Videos of the song are circulating on 

WeChat and other communications apps, often with taglines expressing sadness about the end of that era.

“The 1980s are gone forever,” wrote one listener. “So long, those years of burning passion,” wrote another.

For many Chinese, especially those who came of age during the past 40 years of reform and opening, China appeared to be on an irreversible path forward toward more growth, openness and opportunity.

But now China’s leader, Xi Jinping, is restoring aspects of Mao’s rule, forcing people to confront a more uncertain future rooted in China’s past.

Xi’s predecessors, beginning with Deng Xiaoping, embraced market forces, growth and limited freedoms. Xi, by contrast, is placing national security over the economy, tightening government control, and putting the Communist Party—and himself—at the center of Chinese society.

A Dec. 16 article published by the party’s influential journal, Qiushi, elevated Xi to the same historical status as Mao, calling Xi “the People’s leader”—a title previously reserved for China’s Great Helmsman.

Gone is the booming China that inspired many young people and entrepreneurs to take risks and bet on the future. Home prices are falling, youth unemployment is at a record high, private investment is shrinking, the financial system is drowning in debt and deflation is setting in.          

In addition, China is increasingly walled off from the Western world, both diplomatically and economically.

While Xi himself isn’t to blame for all those problems—some reflect the excesses of the China he inherited—his Mao-style centralization of power is exacerbating many of them.

“Xi is dampening the energy and optimism of the Chinese people,” said Susan Shirk, a former senior diplomat during the Clinton administration and author of a recent book, “Overreach: How China Derailed Its Peaceful Rise.”

“In a system so dominated by one leader,” Shirk said, “everyone feels powerless to effect positive change.”

Aspects of Mao Zedong’s rule are being revived as Beijing, faced with growing economic headwinds and challenges to order, doubles down on Mao-style control. PHOTO: JADE GAO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

A WSJ reporter’s experience

When The Wall Street Journal sent me to Beijing in the spring of 2011 to cover China, what I saw was a nation filled with can-do spirit.

It was just a year after China had overtaken Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. Business owners and college graduates were thinking about how to get into the burgeoning field of e-commerce. Foreigners were pouring in. A sense of hope was widespread. 

With Xi, who came to power in late 2012, many in China saw a strong leader who could take China’s development forward. They took note of how Xi defined his vision for the nation as the “China dream”—a nod to the global appeal of the American dream.

But such hopes were giving way to disenchantment a few years later as Beijing expanded its surveillance state and started tightening the screws on private business.  

Expanding the surveillance state and tightening the screws on private business have dashed the hopes of many for China’s development. PHOTO: PARKER SONG/ASSOCIATED PRESS

In the spring of 2017, when senior executives from multinational companies such as 

Apple and Tesla gathered in a state guesthouse in western Beijing to mingle with senior Chinese officials, I was there, frantically taking notes. The event had as its theme “China and the World: Economic Transformation Through Structural Reforms.”An official I had interviewed before signaled me to a corner of the venue. The official, one of several who had helped introduce Western-style stock trading to China, flagged to me what he viewed as a worrisome trend of the party inserting itself more into companies’ affairs by pressuring them to accept Communist Party committees in their offices.       

“The whole thing about getting listed companies to set up party committees,” he said, “is a reversal of what we had tried to do.” Then he walked away without saying anything else.

These days, the party is everywhere, and the boundary between the party-state and the private sector is getting more muddled. That reverses a trend dating to the reform era when China’s leaders had the party-state step back and let entrepreneurs flourish.

‘Follow the party’

In Shenzhen, Deng’s reform policies helped transform the former fishing village in the shadow of neighboring Hong Kong into a cosmopolitan city of 13 million, home to globally competitive tech companies such as Tencent.

“Time is money, efficiency is life” was the slogan that guided the city’s early development.

 Today, Shenzhen has a new slogan: “Follow the party, start your business”—with the party coming first.

Communist Party direction doesn’t seem to be brightening the city’s future. More than a quarter of Shenzhen’s office space sits empty after Xi started a campaign in 2020 to rein in risk-taking at private firms. The regulatory crackdown wiped out more than $1 trillion in market value from publicly-listed tech firms and triggered layoffs and business retrenchment.

More than a quarter of Shenzhen’s office space sits empty after China’s leader began a campaign in 2020 to rein in risk-taking at private firms. PHOTO: PETER PARKS/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Huang Hua, who left his hometown in northern China three decades ago for Shenzhen, said his future looks worse than a few years ago. Like many other migrant workers, Huang started out in sweatshops in the city. Six years ago, he started a small clothing business in hopes of riding the city’s tech boom.

Huang recalled programmers and software developers shopping at trendy boutiques and meeting up at collaborative workspaces. Business was good for a while, but now many of his customers who worked in tech have lost their jobs.

Companies have had to cut back because of the government’s “rectification campaign,” he said, using a Maoist term—which many regulatory officials also have used—to refer to Xi’s effort to rein in Big Tech. Although work was hard 20 or 30 years ago, “we were always hopeful,” Huang said. “Now I’m not sure if I can keep my business going.”

What Xi wants

Xi doesn’t envision a full return to the Mao era. Obsessed with order, he doesn’t want a repeat of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The mass movement launched by Mao to root out capitalists and assert his authority led to years of bloodshed—something few expect today.

Xi’s vision was made clear at a high-level meeting this month to set China’s economic agenda for 2024. The confab placed priority on developing a “modern industrial system”—party-speak for a state-led economy in which Beijing directs resources to preferred sectors, such as chipmaking or artificial intelligence.

It also called for strengthening “economic propaganda and public opinion guidance” to promote a positive narrative of China’s economy.

Xi’s state-led approach has benefited some sectors such as electric vehicles, with Chinese-made EVs—which benefit from government subsidies—now being sold globally. It also could help wash out speculative behavior in the private sector that, if left unaddressed, could create bigger financial risks for China.

Some Chinese support Xi’s policies, because they think the country needs to accept hardships to put growth on a more sustainable track and prepare for possible conflict with the U.S. Beijing has acknowledged some economic challenges and vowed to increase government spending and monetary support for the economy.

Yet to many in China, the directives at this month’s policy meetings conjure up bad memories of Mao-style campaigns, and how officials back then covered up bad news when centrally planned economic initiatives failed.

Beijing’s state-led economic approach has helped some sectors such as electric vehicles, with Chinese-made EVs, which benefit from government subsidies, now being sold globally. PHOTO: ALEX PLAVEVSKI/SHUTTERSTOCK

Downsides of state control

Analysis by Goldman Sachs earlier this year found that three of the main industries Xi is giving priority to—EVs, lithium-ion batteries and renewable energy—account for only about 3.5% of China’s gross domestic product.

They aren’t nearly big enough to replace China’s property sector, which once accounted for more than 20% of the economy before weakening after a government crackdown on excessive borrowing. They also aren’t big enough to create enough jobs for the millions of college graduates and migrant workers who are now struggling to get by, economists say.

If Xi’s current policy focus holds, economists warn that China may never graduate from the ranks of middle-income emerging markets, let alone overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy, Beijing’s longstanding ambition.

For many people in China, it doesn’t matter whether the country surpasses the U.S. What matters to them is the ability to get ahead through hard work and gumption, as Americans aspire to do.

“The kind of freedom I worry about is financial freedom,” said Zhou Fang, a Shanghai-based financial analyst at a Chinese brokerage firm.

“It seemed that we would always have been able to pursue financial freedom so we could travel wherever we wanted, buy whatever we wanted and wear whatever we wanted,” she said. “Now it is all very uncertain.”

Mao-era tactics resurrected

Faced with growing economic headwinds and challenges to order, Xi is doubling down on Mao-style control, embracing a Mao-era tool as a way to ensure national security.

The practice, called the “Fengqiao experience,” is named after a town in eastern China that gained national fame in the early 1960s when Mao praised the way its officials mobilized people to identify and punish so-called enemies of the proletariat—capitalists, traditionalists and the like.

People were encouraged to report on one another, with husbands informing on wives and children on their parents, leading to some of the most brutal aspects of the Cultural Revolution. After that tumultuous period, the “Fengqiao experience” faded into history.

Xi is trying to revive aspects of it to mobilize people to fix problems at the local level before they lead to widespread social unrest.

Xi has revived the Mao-era Fengqiao model of monitoring and controlling dissent with an app that lets users notify authorities of issues ranging from domestic violence and corporate disputes to traffic violations. PHOTO: YAN YAN/XINHUA/GETTY IMAGES

An app launched in Zhejiang province, where Fengqiao is located, dubbed “Safe Zhejiang,” lets users notify authorities of issues ranging from domestic violence and corporate disputes to traffic violations. In return, informants receive rewards such as shopping discounts.

During my last trip to Fengqiao, in 2019, what I saw was a town that featured capitalist trappings from the reform era—almost every household owned a 

Honda, Toyota or BMW—and yet was trying to adapt to the renewed spotlight on its Maoist past.Since that year, officials across China have been encouraged to attend “study sessions” hosted by Fengqiao officials to learn how to use the Internet and big data to monitor and control discontent. On Nov. 6, Xi honored “Fengqiao experience” representatives from around the country and encouraged further promotion of the practice to make China safer.

Some residents have been reluctant to use the app out of privacy concerns. Other Chinese have grown more concerned about state surveillance and a loss of legal protections for their rights.

John Ling, an e-commerce entrepreneur in Shanghai in his late 40s, recalls a far more liberal environment in the early 2000s. Lured back home by China’s seemingly limitless opportunities after studying in the U.S., he started a business trading goods online.

Back then, “I did feel like you could realize your American dream in China, as long as you worked hard,” Ling recalled.

Year by year he felt greater government interference. As more capital poured into e-commerce, he said, Beijing grew concerned that the sector was diverting resources away from more strategic areas such as semiconductors, an industry in which China still heavily relies on Western firms.

Ling said it became so difficult to raise fresh funding for e-commerce that he decided to shut his venture earlier this year. “It’s all about hard-tech these days,” he said, referring to sectors now favored by the government. “But can you sustain the entire economy with just hard-tech?”

“It feels like nothing is possible” nowadays, he said.

Portraits show Chinese leaders Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping. Xi’s predecessors, beginning with Deng, embraced market forces, growth, and limited freedoms, but Xi is stressing national security. PHOTO: JADE GAO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

End of an era

Such worries are also palpable among foreigners such as Anne Stevenson-Yang, an American who has spent 25 years in China since she first traveled there in 1985.

Stevenson-Yang, now 64, recalls how China rolled out the welcome mat to Westerners during the reform years. In the 1990s, while working as the Beijing representative for the U.S.-China Business Council, a lobbying group for American companies in China, she was a frequent guest at banquets hosted by senior Chinese officials.

“China wanted to learn from everybody,” Stevenson-Yang said.

Now, Chinese authorities treat foreigners with suspicion as Xi puts an emphasis on fending off any perceived Western threats. Raids and investigations involving Western companies assessing investment risks in China this year have made many Westerners wary of traveling to the country, as have arbitrary detentions of foreigners.

Stevenson-Yang, who now runs a research firm that helps international investors analyze Chinese companies, said she is unwilling to go back and run the risk of getting detained. For her, it isn’t just a business matter: her decision has deeply personal implications.

Her husband, Yang Zhifang, a former People’s Liberation Army officer, died of a heart condition two months ago in their home in Connecticut. Before he died, he asked Stevenson-Yang to place a portion of his ashes in a mountain in the Beijing area where his parents were buried.

Now, Stevenson-Yang has to figure out a different way to fulfill that wish, as she isn’t willing to travel to China herself. After her husband’s death, Stevenson-Yang said her family had a long, emotional Zoom call with his family in China.

With mainland China off the table, she said, her family is planning a long trip next year to Taiwan, the self-governed island that China’s Communist Party claims but has never ruled. It is the one place where she believes it is still possible to renew her family’s connection with Chinese food and culture, without risk.

Write to Lingling Wei at Lingling.Wei@wsj.com

3. Russia covered up and undercounted true human cost of floodings after dam explosion, AP investigation finds

Excerpts:

Both Russia and Ukraine have traded blame for bringing down the dam, but analysts agree that Russia had motive. The dam’s collapse occurred right as Ukraine launched what would develop into a disappointing counteroffensive. The flooding altered the geography of the Dnipro River, complicating plans set out by Ukrainian military leaders.

Now, two-thirds of Oleshky is gone, entire districts and homes are destroyed, according to the accounts of half a dozen residents who left.

“There are two Ukraines,” said Svitlana. “One is at war, in tragedy, many people are left homeless. And the other is living life well and flourishes.”

In Oleshky, divisions between the townspeople have deepened, sometimes within members of a single family. The volunteer’s sister moved to Russia. Bila’s uncle and his family are estranged from hers because he harbors pro-Russian views, she said.

Svitlana said colleagues still in Oleshky told her that her office was ransacked after she left in August. But she is confident the documents are still hidden.

“It’s a durable book,” she said.

Russia covered up and undercounted true human cost of floodings after dam explosion, AP investigation finds

BY SAMYA KULLAB AND ILLIA NOVIKOV

Updated 12:36 AM EST, December 28, 2023

AP · December 28, 2023

MYKOLAIV, Ukraine (AP) — They recognized the TV repairman.

The residents of Oleshky in Russian-occupied southern Ukraine could not identify many of those they buried after a catastrophic dam collapse in June sent water coursing through their homes and shattered their lives. The bodies were too bloated and discolored, volunteer rescuers and health workers said. They described seeing faces that resembled rubber masks, frozen in that last frenzied gasp for air. But to those secretly keeping count of the drowned, Yurii Bilyi was no stranger.

The cheerful 56-year-old was a town fixture. He had serviced many homes and spent his days working from a shop just across the street from the churchyard where he was buried, in a hurriedly dug mass grave, The Associated Press has learned.

Anastasiia Bila, his daughter, remembers his last words clearly over the unstable phone connection. “Nastya,” he affectionately called her, hoping to soothe her anxieties as flood waters rose quickly, inundating 600 square kilometers (230 square miles), submerging entire towns and villages along the banks of the Dnipro River, the majority in Russian-occupied areas. “I’ve seen worse under occupation.”

FILE - Houses are seen underwater in the flooded town of Oleshky, Ukraine, June 10, 2023. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka, File)

Over six months since the catastrophic explosion that destroyed the Kakhovka Dam in the southern Kherson region, an AP investigation has found Russian occupation authorities vastly and deliberately undercounted the dead in one of the most devastating chapters of the 22-month war. Russian authorities took control of the issuance of death certificates, immediately removing bodies not claimed by family, and preventing local health workers and volunteers from dealing with the dead, threatening them when they defied orders.

“The scale of this tragedy, not just Russia, but even Ukraine doesn’t realize,” said Svitlana, a nurse who initially oversaw the process of collecting death certificates and later escaped to Ukrainian-controlled territory. “It’s a huge tragedy.”

Russia, which didn’t respond to questions for this article, has said 59 people drowned in the territory it controls, roughly 408 square kilometers (160 square miles) of flooded areas. But in the Russian-occupied town of Oleshky alone, which Ukrainian military officials estimate had a population of 16,000 at the time of the flooding, the number is at least in the hundreds. An exact figure for the dead — in Oleshky, the occupied area’s most populous town before the war, and beyond — may never be known, even if Ukrainian forces retake the territory and are able to investigate on the ground.

The AP spoke to three health workers who kept records of the dead in Oleshky, one volunteer who buried bodies and said she was later threatened by Russian police, and two Ukrainian informants passing intelligence from the area to the Ukrainian security service. According to their accounts, mass graves were dug, and unidentified bodies were taken away and never seen again.

Nearly a dozen interviews were conducted with other residents, rescue volunteers and recent escapees from the area. The AP also gained access to a closed Telegram chat group of 3,000 Oleshky residents who posted about bodies lying on the streets, bodies collected by police and the many missing.

Most spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity or, like Svitlana, on condition only their first names be used, fearing reprisal from Russia on family members still in occupied territory.

Together, these accounts reveal a calculated attempt by Russian authorities to cover up the true cost of the dam collapse, which the AP has found was likely caused by Moscow. Residents of Oleshky fear their enduring traumas risk being forgotten as the war grinds on, and their beloved once idyllic home is gradually depopulated.

A TOWN ABANDONED

The dam burst in the early hours of June 6, causing extensive flooding along the lower Dnipro River, submerging entire communities across the Ukraine-controlled right and Russian-occupied left banks in a matter of hours.

At first, the Russian-appointed administration in Kherson told residents not to be alarmed. In a post on its official Telegram channel, it stressed the “situation is not critical.” So most went about their normal day — walking dogs, going to work, staying at home. Choices that would later prove fatal.

By the afternoon the water levels were rising quickly, inundating two-story homes as the powerful current swept everything away. The elderly struggled to climb up to roofs, people clung to their chimneys waiting to be saved by local rescue crews, most of them civilians who owned boats.

(AP Illustration/Peter Hamlin)

For the first three days of the floods occupation authorities were nowhere to be found, locals said, having apparently fled, despite initially reassuring residents. Conspicuously absent were police and prosecutors, both Russian-appointed officials authorized to deal with the deceased.

Bodies were piling up and decaying in the summer heat, their stench wafted in the air. Wailing relatives approached the town’s medical workers, not knowing where to take the dead.

“A lot of people drowned,” said Svitlana, the head nurse at the Oleshky District Multidisciplinary Hospital, the city’s main primary health center, which later transformed into a shelter for people forced out of their homes. The putrefaction of flesh caused many corpses to inflate. “People were floating around the city like balloons.”

They needed to be buried. “We took the responsibility,” the nurse said.

They had the authority to issue death certificates both under Ukrainian law and Russian rule. The health center functioned as a main hospital for Oleshky residents after Russia occupied the town in March 2022, soon after Russia invaded Ukraine. Health workers continued to receive salaries from Ukraine, deposited electronically into their bank accounts, a crucial link tying them to their homeland as the occupation’s draconian laws began to transform everything else before their eyes.

Russian rubles replaced Ukrainian hryvnias in the market. Some residents accepted Russian passports to make life under occupation easier. Keeping record of the Ukrainian dead, largely caused by shelling before the floods, became a last vestige of Ukrainian control.

For health workers in the hospital, it was a matter of national necessity. After occupation authorities forbade the issuance of death certificates in the Ukrainian language on Jan. 1, health workers continued to do so in secret to ensure the Ukrainian medical database was up to date in Kyiv, the capital. Residents were given two certificates, one to satisfy their new occupiers, and the other to keep moored to their homeland. Health workers told residents to hide the latter.

(AP Illustration/Peter Hamlin)

The same procedure was followed immediately after the dam collapse.

In total, around 15 death certificates were electronically sent during the first week after the flood to Svitlana Serdiukova, the health facility’s medical director in exile, who was keeping track of the registry remotely in government-controlled Ukraine.

The cause of death for all 15 was asphyxia by drowning.

RUSSIA CERTIFIES THE DEAD

Everything came to a halt on June 12.

The Russian state emergency rescue service workers were back in Oleshky by the afternoon of June 9, and three days later, they began reasserting control.

They brought large trucks and road-clearing equipment and offered to evacuate people first to Radensk, in Kherson region, and from there relocate them to Chelyabinsk and Tula in Russia. The residents refused to be taken that far, asking only to be taken to a dry patch in Oleshky.

They were refused. Many stayed put.

Russian authorities had strict orders for the hospital: Doctors were now forbidden from issuing death certificates for flood victims. They were still permitted to issue certificates for other causes of death, however. The new rule was issued verbally, said Svitlana and Yelena, a fellow nurse at the hospital.

From that moment on, they said, flood victims would have to be referred for autopsies in facilities elsewhere in Kherson region, in Kalanchak, Skadovsk, and Henichesk, where doctors approved by occupation authorities would be in charge of issuing the certificates after conducting forensic examinations. Relatives could not bury their family members without the crucial document.

Svitlana said she pressed the police for an official order proving the old policy in place since March had changed. They didn’t have it, and responded to her queries with threats, she said.

“They said: ‘You will suffer the consequences for doing this.’ I said, ‘Alright, I am ready, and the doctor, too.’”

The order deprived doctors of responsibility for flood victims. It also took away their ability to keep records of the dead for Kyiv.

Serdiukova’s record-keeping could go no further. The last Ukrainian death certificate she received was on June 14.

The police came to the hospital daily to make copies of death certificates issued by doctors, to ensure the rules were being obeyed. “You need to understand under what circumstances we worked there — under the FSB, police, prosecutors,” Svitlana said, using the acronym for the Russian security service that is the main successor agency of the Soviet-era KGB.

The hospital referred just under 50 bodies to the new autopsy centers, but this doesn’t reflect the total dead. Residents were given specific numbers to call police who dispatched workers to collect discovered bodies, circumventing the hospital altogether. Family members were charged 10,000 rubles (equivalent to about $108) as a service fee, a hefty sum for many under occupation. Those who couldn’t afford that begged doctors to write a different cause of death, such as “heart attack,” so they could be buried quickly, both nurses said.

Bodies without relatives to claim them were never seen again.

The rescue service also patrolled Oleshky’s streets to collect the dead.

On June 15, the hospital began giving vaccines against hepatitis A, dysentery and typhoid amid rising concerns of water-borne diseases. A worker from the town’s municipal “Pobut” service, responsible for cleaning streets, arrived visibly inebriated, Svitlana said.

Svitlana told him to return when he was sober. But the man, in his early 40s, replied, he could not but drink after what he had seen. He had been ordered to dig out the dead from under their collapsed homes, he said, and bury them in mass graves.

He recognized some.

“The TV guy has drowned, the ginger, Yura,” he told her, referring to his hair color, according to Svitlana’s account.

She knew him, too.

FILE - Water flows over the collapsed Kakhovka Dam in Nova Kakhovka, in Russian-occupied Ukraine, June 7, 2023. (AP Photo, File)

A FATHER BURIED

Anastasiia Bila, Yurii’s daughter, was in Lviv in western Ukraine, where she had fled before the invasion, when she spoke to her father for the last time. It was on June 6, at around 3 p.m.

He had refused to evacuate their family home. He had two German shepherds he could not abandon.

The connection was intermittent. She urged him to go to the second floor of the house if the water levels continued to rise. She tried to call again a half-hour later, but there was no reception.

She made a plea on the private Telegram chat: “Bilyi Yurii Anatoliyovych, does not get in touch for a second day,” she wrote, adding his last known location, his home’s address: Dniprovska, 85. “Please help me find my father, maybe someone saw or knows his whereabouts, any information.”

On Sunday, five days later, Bila’s uncle was able to check on his brother by hiring a boat with his wife and son. They found Bilyi’s lifeless body. He told Anastasiia she could stop looking for her father.

The body was buried in a mass grave in the yard of the Orthodox Pokrovska Church in the center of Oleshky. It was not possible to bury him and others anywhere else, as most places were still flooded, Bila said.

Bilyi’s shop has been on the same street.

The grave was doused with chlorine, Bila’s uncle, who witnessed the burial, recounted to her, she said. The priest prayed over the dead.

Pobut workers, made up of local Ukrainians and acting on orders of occupation authorities, were responsible for collecting and burying the dead, according to health workers. They dug on a daily basis between June 10-20. The bodies were buried without coffins, not even bags to cover them.

As the unit was acting on orders of occupation authorities, the decision to bury people in mass graves likely came from those authorities, health workers said.

“The first bodies were buried in the city center (church), as 90% of the city was underwater,” said Bila. “Those bodies were not processed by a hospital, no autopsy or time of death, they were buried right away,” she said.

Serdiukova later confirmed Bilyi was not in Ukraine’s registry. Officially he is considered a missing person.

The exact number of bodies in the grave where Bilyi was buried is not known. Bila said her uncle did not tell her a precise number. He is living under occupation and did not respond to questions from the AP.

But the hospital workers the AP interviewed estimate the number to be between 10 to 20. For a time, they tried to document who was buried where. They asked relatives to fill out forms detailing where bodies were found, how they were clothed, and later, which plot of which grave they were buried in.

“The bodies were collected and buried in a mass grave to ensure they don’t start decomposing on city streets. After de-occupation there will be an exhumation. That’s when we’ll be able to investigate everything,” said Serdiukova.

With the return of the Russian state emergency service, the process became more orderly. They arrived with trucks to carry bodies and a special rescue team.

The fate of unidentified bodies, those without relatives to claim them, carted away by the Russian rescue service is also not known. Yelena, the nurse, approached a truck driver and asked him what would happen to them.

He told her casually that the bodies with no relatives were buried in a mass grave, she said. Without caskets, in black bags.

While several people interviewed referred to more mass graves than the one where Bila’s father was buried, the AP was unable to determine the precise number of such graves or how many people were buried in them.

Bila considers herself lucky. At least her father is buried in the town he loved and refused to leave, even under the threat of death.

Like many, she’s waiting for Ukraine to liberate the town. Then, she said, “I’ll be able to re-bury him in a proper cemetery.”

THE THREAT

The volunteer was not afraid of dead bodies. When the floods inundated her neighborhood in Oleshky, the sight of the floating dead did not stir her like it did the others. She had witnessed her best friend’s death when she was a teenager.

“It’s the living that frighten me,” she said.

On June 7, she, her husband and three neighbors went about evacuating trapped residents inside homes. By June 9, she witnessed dead bodies for the first time. They were “bloated and partially decomposed. They were floating. I often couldn’t recognize a person,” she said.

Some were trapped under the sticky mud and had to be dug out. Those she knew, around 20, she took to the hospital with the hopes that relatives could claim the bodies. The rest were taken to another church in the city, blessed by a priest and buried in the town’s cemetery. She said she collected “more than 100” dead.

The health workers estimate 200 to 300 people drowned in Oleshky. “I’m even afraid to say it out loud,” said Yelena.

Many were older, unable to physically leave their homes or climb up to the roof, according to the accounts of rescue volunteers, residents who reported relatives dead, and health workers.

“I buried them with my own hands,” the volunteer said. There was no money to hire diggers, she said, but people volunteered to do it for free. The graves were dug shallow, 1 meter (3 feet) deep. Any more and they would flood. The volunteer said she used bedsheets to cover them. When those ran out, she said, she found plastic film.

Pits were dug for each person, but sometimes for up to three, the volunteer said.

But this work was put to a stop when the Russian rescue service returned. Occupation authorities prohibited volunteers from collecting or burying the dead, telling them this was a job for the police only.

Russian emergency service trucks arrived. Workers in white bodysuits put the dead in black bags, witnesses said. One driver told the volunteer they were destined for autopsies in Henichesk, an occupied port city about three hours away.

Some days later, several police officers came to the volunteer’s home. She said they told her that an informant had told them she had been involved in burying people without death certificates. They interrogated her about why she had transported bodies, and how many she had recovered. She explained there was no other option, the bodies were smelling.

They reprimanded her, telling her she did not have the right to collect bodies and eventually forced her to sign a document promising she would stop collecting the dead because she didn’t have the right qualifications, she said.

“They told me that if I continue doing so they’ll ‘cage me’, That’s when I stopped,” the volunteer said. “I was scared for myself and my family.”

The police visited her home almost every day after that, she said.

“They had video journalists coming here to show how Russia helps here. They wanted to conceal the consequences of the dam explosion, so that people don’t talk about how many people suffered and how many needed help. They wanted to hide it,” she said. “That’s why they prohibited us.”

WORLDS APART

The evidence is still hidden in Oleshky: documents detailing the dead, plots where they are buried, photos, the death certificates collected in secret.

“I hid all these papers behind closed doors so that no one knew,” Svitlana said. “With time everything is forgotten, some people might leave, their life will change, but with those papers — no one will forget. It was important to save them.”

She is waiting for Ukraine to liberate the territory so the truth can come to light. She cleared her phone and left documents behind to keep them out of the hands of Russians who routinely stop Ukrainians leaving occupied areas and conduct thorough security checks.

Residents, speaking to the AP after they returned to Ukraine-controlled territory, said most of the town is no longer habitable. Many remain missing since the floods, while battles inch closer. Ukrainian forces are reportedly advancing near the Krynky area, which lies 40 kilometers (24 miles) from Oleshky. There was a pause during the flooding from shelling, which resumed with ferocity, residents say.

Both Russia and Ukraine have traded blame for bringing down the dam, but analysts agree that Russia had motive. The dam’s collapse occurred right as Ukraine launched what would develop into a disappointing counteroffensive. The flooding altered the geography of the Dnipro River, complicating plans set out by Ukrainian military leaders.

Now, two-thirds of Oleshky is gone, entire districts and homes are destroyed, according to the accounts of half a dozen residents who left.

“There are two Ukraines,” said Svitlana. “One is at war, in tragedy, many people are left homeless. And the other is living life well and flourishes.”

In Oleshky, divisions between the townspeople have deepened, sometimes within members of a single family. The volunteer’s sister moved to Russia. Bila’s uncle and his family are estranged from hers because he harbors pro-Russian views, she said.

Svitlana said colleagues still in Oleshky told her that her office was ransacked after she left in August. But she is confident the documents are still hidden.

“It’s a durable book,” she said.

___

Novikov reported from Kyiv, Ukraine.

AP · December 28, 2023

4. The Marines Transformed to Take On China. Will They Be Ready for Everything Else?

Excerpts:

Retired Marine generals presented Berger with their concerns in a day-long Quantico meeting in March 2022. Present were several of Berger’s predecessors as commandant, including Joe Dunford, who had also chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Anthony Zinni, who had led Central Command, was also there. 

For seven hours they made their case that the new design would compromise the Marines’ global role. Berger said little. The next day, Charles Krulak, a former commandant, emailed Berger, who responded that he planned to stay the course, Krulak recalled. 

The retired commanders looked to Congress for support. Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said he heard them out but found the Berger plan convincing. “The only concern I have about the Marine course is that they may not be moving fast enough given how fast China is modernizing its military,” said Moulton, who served as a Marine officer in Iraq. 

Sullivan has been more skeptical. The Alaska senator inserted a provision in a defense policy bill, which passed this month, that mandates an independent assessment of the overhaul and its effect on the Marines’s ability to carry out other missions. 

The current Marine commandant, Smith, likes to remind people that he is a plain-spoken man from Plano, Texas, and uses that to sell the proposition that he can strike the right balance. 

“The first thing they teach you as a lieutenant in your first fire support class is don’t creep up on the target. You know, add 25 meters, add 25 meters. That’s a waste,” Smith said. “You make a bold correction, and Force Design 2030 was a bold correction. And now we’re doing top-down targeting, bottom-up refinement.”

The Marines Transformed to Take On China. Will They Be Ready for Everything Else?

A plan to redesign the Corps stirred warnings that it might have gone too far

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-marines-transformed-to-take-on-china-will-they-be-ready-for-everything-else-d4ea24c6?mod=hp_lead_pos8&mod=wknd_pos1

By Michael R. GordonFollow

 and Nancy A. YoussefFollow

Updated Dec. 28, 2023 12:00 am ET

The Marine Corps went all in when the Pentagon identified China as the prime national- security challenge facing the U.S. 

To meet it, the Marines in 2020 proclaimed a thoroughgoing transformation. Under “Force Design 2030,” the Corps would do away with its tanks, make other cuts and devote fewer resources for its long-held mission as the nation’s premier crisis-response force. Instead, the focus would be on China, with small teams of missile-toting Marines hopping from island to island in the Western Pacific to attack the Chinese fleet in a conflict. 

The effort, however, is raising questions about how ready the Marines are to handle unanticipated threats in an increasingly disorderly world. 

As fighting rages in Gaza and Iranian-backed forces lob missiles at U.S. troops and commercial shipping in the region, a Marine expeditionary unit is now floating in the Red Sea, a sign of how the Middle East has forced itself back on the Pentagon agenda.

Corps leaders defend the changes, insisting the leaner but more modern force being fielded can handle the full array of missions. But the Marines’ new vision provoked unease among some senior officers—one of whom fired off a classified memo arguing that the plan went too far—and set off opposition from retired Marine generals.

“Like other retired Marines, I support some of the Marine Corps’ modernization efforts and its focus on the pacing threat in the Pacific,” said Sam Mundy, who served as the top Marine officer in the Middle East from 2018 to 2021. “But I’m also concerned about what this means for the service’s ability to respond globally.”

“The latest crisis in the Middle East underscores the risks of hyper-optimization,” said Mundy, who has since retired. 

The wrangling over the Marines’ role is central to a broader debate over how the Pentagon prepares for the future, balancing its strategy to counter Beijing’s growing might while preserving flexibility to respond to other crises. 

Since the Pentagon identified China as a disruptive rival nearly six years ago, the Marines have moved farther than other services in shifting from decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preparing for great-power conflict. 

The new mission for the Marines envisions small units moving from island to island in the Pacific to counter China’s naval fleet; a 2022 exercise in the Philippines. PHOTO: BASILIO SEPE/ZUMA PRESS

In addition to jettisoning its tanks, the Corps dispensed with most of its cannon artillery batteries, trimmed the number of its infantry battalions, eliminated its units that deploy bridges over rivers and difficult terrain and cut the number of F-35 jet fighters and helicopters it has deployed. Nearly $16 billion of the money that was saved is being used to develop long-range missile batteries to sink ships, pursue munition-carrying and reconnaissance drones as well as adding other capabilities. 

Defense Department officials who support the change argue the Chinese military buildup is so advanced that the Pentagon must shift its focus lest Beijing emerge as the dominant power in East Asia. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has lauded the Marines’ “transformational effort” and willingness to make tough trade-offs “to deter the next war.” 

Others, however, cite the Pentagon’s poor record in forecasting where the U.S. might next be called on to fight, including in the Middle East where Iran remains a danger and which accounts for almost a third of the world’s oil production

“My biggest concern is does this turn the Marine Corps into a niche force at the expense of its global response capability?” said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R., Alaska), who serves as a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. U MAY AO LIKE

China sees NATO expansion as a threat, but concerns over Beijing’s intentions have prompted the alliance to boost ties in the Pacific. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday takes a look at what NATO partnerships could mean in the event of a conflict over Taiwan. Illustration: David Fang

The debate carries particular resonance for the Marine Corps, which has long seen itself as the nation’s top 9-1-1 response force but is also anxious to secure a place in the Pentagon’s priority mission of deterring China. 

Gen. Eric Smith, who became the Marines commandant in September, has reaffirmed his commitment to the redesign while also opening a dialogue with many of the critics, who are urging him to reverse some cuts. 

“I am open to adding back anything that I believe is required,” he said in an interview shortly before taking command. ”But you have to, again, have data research or gaming, analysis and experimentation that validates that. What I won’t do is co-commandant with anyone.”

Smith, who suffered cardiac arrest in October, plans to return to work in the coming weeks, a Marine officer said. So far, no course correction has been ordered, the officer said, but Smith plans to release planning guidance to the Corps after he gets back. 

Gen. Eric Smith, the Marine Corps commandant, is committed to the redesign of the force but open to hearing from critics of the idea. PHOTO: KYODONEWS/ZUMA PRESS

Battle for the future

The fight over the Marine Corps’ future began nearly four years ago when Smith’s predecessor, Gen. David Berger, unveiled Force Design 2030. As an assistant commandant, Smith went through every part of the planning. 

Like most Marines, Berger had served in the U.S.’s “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq. His formative experience was in the Pacific, where he became preoccupied with a different challenge: China’s strategy to keep the U.S. at arm’s length if conflict erupts by attacking the military bases and aircraft-carrier battle groups the U.S. has long relied on to marshal forces and supplies in the region. 

“They were going to extend a lead on us or we had to take a step back, reassess where we were going, and figure out how to stay in front,” Berger said in an interview shortly before retiring in July.

Under the vision, while other services would use their “standoff” capabilities to fire missiles at the Chinese fleet from afar, the Marines would be a “stand-in force.” Small units, equipped with new antiship missiles and drones, would disperse to elude attack, moving from island to island in an effort to bottle up China’s naval fleet. 

The decadelong plan, which envisioned the creation of three new littoral regiments in the Pacific, marked a striking departure from Pentagon jockeying. The Corps didn’t seek a bigger slice of the defense budget but would fund the transformation with offsetting cuts. 

The new strategy had its risks. Supplying island-based units under attack would require new logistical capabilities that had yet to be developed. 

Gen. David Berger, a onetime Marine Corps commandant, unveiled the new ‘force design’ for the Corps. PHOTO: CAROLYN KASTER/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Yet Berger’s champions said he was the change agent the military needed.

“Small, agile, difficult-to-target maritime forces tailored to confront specific Chinese or Russian malign activities in their regions make great sense militarily, economically, and diplomatically,” said Robert Work, a former deputy defense secretary and a retired Marine colonel. 

“The change is long overdue,” added Work, who thinks the Marines still retain enough capability to hedge against other dangers. 

In pushing ahead, Berger relied on a small circle of planners whom he asked to sign nondisclosure agreements and didn’t consult with the generals who oversaw operations in Africa and the Middle East, those generals said. 

“I think the Marine Corps made a conscious decision to ensure that the Central Command was not included in the process,” said Ret. Gen. Frank McKenzie, who ran the command that oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Berger didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment on McKenzie’s remarks that was relayed by a Marine spokesman. His supporters say it is the commandant’s responsibility to update the Corps. 

The fabric frays

The discord went beyond grumbling, with some senior officers finding fault with Berger’s plan while some retired generals worked to oppose it. 

Scott Moore, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who served as senior analyst at Wargaming Center at the Marines’ base in Quantico, Va., said wargames he was involved with to test the new design were based on some unchallenged assumptions. Chief among those was that Marines would have no difficulty deploying to remote islands before a conflict and would be adequately supplied with fuel, ammunition, spare parts and medical supplies when fighting broke out.

A Marine spokesman said that other wargames have been conducted to assess the logistics issues. 

At Camp Pendleton, Calif., the commanding general of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, Lt. Gen. George Smith, sent a classified assessment in April 2022 warning that reducing aircraft, artillery and logistics capabilities would lead to the “fraying of the fabric” of the nearly 50,000-strong task force, according to people familiar with the document. This, he wrote, would hamper the force’s ability to train for and execute large-scale, combined-arms operations against potential adversaries around the globe. Smith retired from the Marines earlier this year.

The redesign of the Marine Corps involves cutting the number of the service’s F-35 jet fighters; jets at an exercise in July in the Philippines. PHOTO: TED ALJIBE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Retired Marine generals presented Berger with their concerns in a day-long Quantico meeting in March 2022. Present were several of Berger’s predecessors as commandant, including Joe Dunford, who had also chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Anthony Zinni, who had led Central Command, was also there. 

For seven hours they made their case that the new design would compromise the Marines’ global role. Berger said little. The next day, Charles Krulak, a former commandant, emailed Berger, who responded that he planned to stay the course, Krulak recalled. 

The retired commanders looked to Congress for support. Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said he heard them out but found the Berger plan convincing. “The only concern I have about the Marine course is that they may not be moving fast enough given how fast China is modernizing its military,” said Moulton, who served as a Marine officer in Iraq. 

Sullivan has been more skeptical. The Alaska senator inserted a provision in a defense policy bill, which passed this month, that mandates an independent assessment of the overhaul and its effect on the Marines’s ability to carry out other missions. 

The current Marine commandant, Smith, likes to remind people that he is a plain-spoken man from Plano, Texas, and uses that to sell the proposition that he can strike the right balance. 

“The first thing they teach you as a lieutenant in your first fire support class is don’t creep up on the target. You know, add 25 meters, add 25 meters. That’s a waste,” Smith said. “You make a bold correction, and Force Design 2030 was a bold correction. And now we’re doing top-down targeting, bottom-up refinement.”

Write to Michael R. Gordon at michael.gordon@wsj.com and Nancy A. Youssef at nancy.youssef@wsj.com 

5. Hostage Mia Schem Reveals She Was Held Captive by Gaza Family in Bombshell First Interview: ‘Everyone There Is a Terrorist’

Hostage Mia Schem Reveals She Was Held Captive by Gaza Family in Bombshell First Interview: ‘Everyone There Is a Terrorist’

The 21-year-old woman who became the face of Israel's hostage crisis says she 'went through a holocaust' in captivity

Published 12/28/23 07:04 AM ET|Updated 14 min ago

Neetzan Zimmerman

themessenger.com · December 28, 2023

Mia Schem, the 21-year-old French-Israeli woman who spent 54 days in Hamas captivity, is speaking out in her first interview since being released — revealing what she experienced during her time behind enemy lines.

“You didn’t give an interview right away [after returning to Israel], and it was important to you to give this interview now — why?” Schem is asked by journalist Lior Veroslavski of Israel’s Channel 13 News in a clip released by the network Thursday.

View post on Twitter

“It was important to me to relay the truth about the nature of the people who live in Gaza, who they are truly are, and what I experienced there,” Schem responds.

“It was important to you that the world understands what?” Veroslavski asks.

“That I went through a holocaust,” Schem answers bluntly.

“Everyone over there is a terrorist.”

Schem, a resident of the central Israeli town of Shoham, was kidnapped by terrorists from the Supernova music festival and later became the face of the hostage crisis after appearing in the first video released by Hamas just days after the Oct. 7 massacre.

While in captivity, Schem, who was badly injured during the attack, was operated on by a veterinarian and was forced to perform physical therapy on herself.

Schem revealed to Channel 13 that while she was initially kidnapped by Hamas, she was later held by a family of civilians in Gaza.

“Suddenly I realized that I’m with a family,” she told Veroslavski.

“Suddenly I’m asking myself questions: Why am I in some family’s home? Why are there kids here? Why is there a wife?”

The full interview will air in Israel on Friday night.

Schem was released in November along with several dozen other women and children as part of a temporary ceasefire deal. There are over 130 hostages who remain in captivity in Gaza.

themessenger.com · December 28, 2023

6. Russia’s military wives emerge as wild card to Putin’s triumphal mood

Can military wives wield sufficient influence? I am not so sure in Russia. But we can hope.

Excerpts:

U.S. intelligence estimates that 315,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded, but in Russia the numbers are secret and officials from Putin down are conveying the message that sending your son to Ukraine is patriotic and right.

His recent orchestrated announcement that he would run for reelection involved several pro-war parents whose sons were killed in Ukraine, clamoring for him to run again.

“It’s a signal that the Kremlin would like to send to the society that this is a behavior we would like to see from the society — that even these people who lost the most precious they have in their lives still stand by Putin,” Stanovaya said.

At the ceremony for Putin’s campaign announcement, Maria Kostyuk, whose son died in the war, told the president that “our guys are on the front lines performing their duty, and we are in the rear, and our guys did not leave their front, so do not leave us.” She is employed by the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation, a state-backed body founded by Putin that promotes the war and is chaired by one of his relations.

A 26-year-old woman from a small Russian city, with a young son, felt as though society was cracking apart when her husband was mobilized on Oct. 26, 2022. The woman, whom The Post is not identifying for security reasons, is a member of “The Way Home.”

She said law-abiding people obeyed the mobilization order “and then the country betrayed them.” Meanwhile, she said, the sons of Russia’s elite were spared.

Russia’s military wives emerge as wild card to Putin’s triumphal mood

By Robyn Dixon and Natalia Abbakumova

December 28, 2023 at 1:30 a.m. EST

The Washington Post · by Robyn Dixon · December 28, 2023

RIGA, Latvia — The loved ones of the drafted Russian soldiers forced to fight in Ukraine indefinitely have tried everything: They appealed to the Defense Ministry, wrote letters to President Vladimir Putin, met with many officials and even protested publicly. Their questions to Putin’s annual “direct line” call-in show for Russians last week were ignored.

They mounted car sticker campaigns calling for the return of their husbands and sons, and crafted Christmas tree ornaments with the words, “Bring Papa home.” They posted impassioned video messages on social media.

The Kremlin has rebuffed them. Yet they have emerged as the only wild card in Putin’s highly stage-managed election campaign that will allow him to rule until at least 2030.

In this highly charged atmosphere, the Kremlin is determined to stifle any dissent, but there is no easy answer to women furious that their sons and husbands are being forced to fight on until the end of the war.

Russian authorities have sent agents of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, to question soldiers whose wives are involved, according to an increasingly strident Telegram group, “The Way Home,” which is leading the campaign to bring men home. Military officers have threatened to send soldiers into front-line assault operations, unless they silence their wives, it reports.

“Your methods are very dirty. You are trying to calm our anger by putting pressure on our relatives. Keep in mind that we can lose them at any moment. You are playing with their lives and ours,” according to a Dec. 19 post on the channel. “These are the obvious methods of cowards and rats.”

A day earlier, the channel urged Putin to end the war “or go to the front yourself and die.”

Putin took no questions from such women in his direct line show but dashed their hopes by ruling out a new round of mobilization that would allow exhausted contract and drafted soldiers — who have been fighting for a year or more — to go home.

Russian political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya, based in France, said that Putin’s decision was irreversible and seen as necessary to avoid the public furor that accompanied the 2022 call-up that mobilized at least 300,000 men for the war.

“There will be no pity. And the Kremlin will try to keep them silent. And if there will be some more radicalized actions, they will resort to more repressive measures,” she said.

A single mother of a soldier sent to fight in Ukraine more than a year ago against his will, said men were being sent “to slaughter” in suicidal battle missions, sometimes calling their wives beforehand to give their grim goodbyes.

“I’m an ordinary village woman, and my son couldn’t even kill a chicken, and now all this has happened,” said the woman, whom The Washington Post is not identifying because she could be jailed for criticizing the military under Russia’s draconian censorship laws.

“Every day you live in fear and worry. You live from one text message to another message,” she said. He and his unit “just can’t continue there; they don’t have any more strength.”

He refused to follow an order to storm an enemy position and was kept in a squalid military prison for a week with others, she said.

“I wrote letters to deputies and the president’s office. In response, we received only bureaucratic replies.”

A soldier named Alexander, mobilized in the southern Russian city of Voronezh, posted a video on “The Way Home” this week while on a short military break, saying that all the mobilized soldiers wanted to go home.

“Everyone’s very tired. So what? Nobody cares,” he said. “We don’t need anything. Just let us go home. Everyone wants to go home,” adding that military leaders could stretch out the war “for as long as you want.”

As Putin exudes confidence, claiming that Ukraine and the West have failed to defeat Russia, he projects a victory just around the corner. Huge illuminated signs in Moscow read “Russia — country of victors.” Those who dissent are targets.

“They pretend that we do not exist,” the mother said. “They call us traitors to the motherland. It makes you feel disappointment, resentment, annoyance and perhaps all the negative feelings. The question constantly arises ... How can we be treated like this?”

U.S. intelligence estimates that 315,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded, but in Russia the numbers are secret and officials from Putin down are conveying the message that sending your son to Ukraine is patriotic and right.

His recent orchestrated announcement that he would run for reelection involved several pro-war parents whose sons were killed in Ukraine, clamoring for him to run again.

“It’s a signal that the Kremlin would like to send to the society that this is a behavior we would like to see from the society — that even these people who lost the most precious they have in their lives still stand by Putin,” Stanovaya said.

At the ceremony for Putin’s campaign announcement, Maria Kostyuk, whose son died in the war, told the president that “our guys are on the front lines performing their duty, and we are in the rear, and our guys did not leave their front, so do not leave us.” She is employed by the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation, a state-backed body founded by Putin that promotes the war and is chaired by one of his relations.

A 26-year-old woman from a small Russian city, with a young son, felt as though society was cracking apart when her husband was mobilized on Oct. 26, 2022. The woman, whom The Post is not identifying for security reasons, is a member of “The Way Home.”

She said law-abiding people obeyed the mobilization order “and then the country betrayed them.” Meanwhile, she said, the sons of Russia’s elite were spared.

“My husband’s mood is that, ‘We are here to the very end, and maybe we will never return.’ When he calls me, you can hear the explosions in the background, and it’s really frightening.”

Clamping down on the women is delicate, Stanovaya said, with the Kremlin determined to maintain control but avoid a scandal and the impression that the federal government is cracking down. Regional governors were ordered to somehow make the women “disappear from informational space.”

“If you try to send 100 policemen to arrest these women, it will make a lot of noise in the public space, so it’s not an option,” she said.

Instead, a range of other methods have been deployed to undermine them. State television propagandists called them traitors and Nazi collaborators. Slick videos from rival groups of military women have condemned them.

Olga Lesnova, a lawmaker in Ugra, in southern Russia, held classes for soldiers’ wives on “how to get rid of resentment toward the world.” Officials have infiltrated the Telegram channel, and FSB officials have questioned women about planned protests, according to “The Way Home.”

But the 26-year-old member of the group said the efforts to stop them only made them more defiant.

“Right now, nothing will stop us. Nothing can stop the women who have united because they have nothing to lose. Their men are facing such conditions that the women are not afraid of anything.”

For the single mother whose son is at war, protest, once unthinkable, now seems a last desperate hope to save him. “I have not participated in rallies, street protests, but I think very soon I will agree to do so.”

“I feel deceived,” she continued. “I realize that in any conflict all sides are to blame, but I have one question: When will those who are responsible for stopping this hell sit down at the negotiating table?”

The Washington Post · by Robyn Dixon · December 28, 2023

7. Overseas But Paying the Price: Army Ends Policy that Allowed Soldiers to Store Belongings While Deployed

Excerpts:

The move happened in October, but the new policy has not previously been reported in the press, with the order not widely distributed to the force.

Army planners are drafting a policy that would enable storage at no cost to soldiers, though that reversal was noted only after Military.com initially inquired on the matter in early December. The service did not mention the development of the future cost-saving policy to the publication when initially contacted after the move elicited widespread scorn online.

It was not immediately clear whether the funding was discontinued for all types of deployments or only for soldiers on temporary duty, or TDY.

"We understand the burden this could potentially place on soldiers, and HQDA G-1 is drafting policy that would enable such storage," Saez said in a statement to Military.com.

In the meantime, soldiers are authorized to store their vehicles in motor pools, which are often occupied by tactical vehicles and frequently are not covered or climate controlled.

Overseas But Paying the Price: Army Ends Policy that Allowed Soldiers to Store Belongings While Deployed

military.com · by Steve Beynon · December 27, 2023

The Army has ended a major program that allowed soldiers to store their home goods and vehicles at no cost while they are away from home for extended periods of time.

Army Sustainment Command, which oversees logistics for the force, discontinued the use of funds across the service to store vehicles and other goods owned by soldiers while they are deployed, Sgt. Pablo Saez, a service spokesperson, told Military.com on Wednesday.

The move happened in October, but the new policy has not previously been reported in the press, with the order not widely distributed to the force.

Army planners are drafting a policy that would enable storage at no cost to soldiers, though that reversal was noted only after Military.com initially inquired on the matter in early December. The service did not mention the development of the future cost-saving policy to the publication when initially contacted after the move elicited widespread scorn online.

It was not immediately clear whether the funding was discontinued for all types of deployments or only for soldiers on temporary duty, or TDY.

"We understand the burden this could potentially place on soldiers, and HQDA G-1 is drafting policy that would enable such storage," Saez said in a statement to Military.com.

In the meantime, soldiers are authorized to store their vehicles in motor pools, which are often occupied by tactical vehicles and frequently are not covered or climate controlled.

The service has long offered vouchers for soldiers to store their belongings. During deployments, some troops have historically ended their apartment leases and rented a storage locker, subsidized by the Army, to save money on rent. But in October, the Army G-1, which oversees personnel policy and is commanded by Lt. Gen. Douglas Stitt, decided current travel policies note only that a soldier's belongings "may" be stored, meaning the Army didn't have to do so, according to an internal memo from Col. Heather Carlisle, director for support operations at Army Sustainment Command.

"HQDA G1, the proponent for [storage] entitlements, recently determined that the Army would no longer support [storage] entitlements because there is no Army policy explicitly authorizing storage in support of soldiers deployed for contingency operations," Carlisle said in an Oct. 23 memo. She did not return multiple requests for comment.

This is one of two sudden moves from the Army's G-1 that caused ire among the rank and file and some leadership in the service. In October, sudden orders for hundreds of noncommissioned officers to immediately attend recruiting school after the Army failed to properly track how many recruiters it had and how many new ones were entering the pipeline through the school at Fort Knox, Kentucky, led to soldiers potentially being shipped out weeks before the holidays.

military.com · by Steve Beynon · December 27, 2023

8. Russell Hamler of WWII Merrill’s Marauders Dies at 99

The end of an era. But we must never forget these incredible men.

Russell Hamler of famed WWII Merrill’s Marauders dies at 99

militarytimes.com · by The Associated Press · December 28, 2023

HARRISBURG, Pa. — The reputed last member of the famed American jungle fighting unit in World War II nicknamed the Merrill’s Marauders has died.

Russell Hamler, 99, died on Tuesday, his son Jeffrey said. He did not give a cause of death.

Hamler was the last living Marauder, according to a biography published by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in January.

Hamler had been living in the Pittsburgh area, where he was born in 1924, and enlisted in the Army at 18, according to the department’s biography.

In 2022, the Marauders received the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’ highest honor. The Marauders inspired a 1962 movie called “Merrill’s Marauders,” and dozens of Marauders were awarded individual decorations after the war, from the Distinguished Service Cross to the Silver Star. The Army also awarded the Bronze Star to every soldier in the unit.

The soldiers spent months behind enemy lines, marching hundreds of miles through the tangled jungles and steep mountains of Burma to capture a Japanese-held airfield and open an Allied supply route between India and China.

They battled hunger and disease between firefights with Japanese forces during their secret mission, a grueling journey of roughly 1,000 miles (1,610 kilometers) on foot that killed almost all of them.

In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed to have the Army assemble a ground unit, the 5307th Composite Unit Provisional, for a long-range mission behind enemy lines into Japanese-occupied Burma, now Myanmar. Seasoned infantrymen and newly enlisted soldiers alike volunteered for the mission, deemed so secret they weren’t told where they were going.

Merrill’s Marauders — nicknamed for the unit’s commander, Brig. Gen. Frank Merrill — were tasked with cutting off Japanese communications and supply lines along their long march to the airfield at the occupied town of Myitkyina. Often outnumbered, they successfully fought Japanese troops in five major engagements, plus 30 minor ones, between February and August 1944, according to the department.

Starting with 3,000 soldiers, the Marauders completed their mission five months later with barely 200 men still in the fight.

Hamler was wounded in the hip by a mortar fragment during the battle known as Nhpum Ga, the department’s biography said. The injury immobilized Hamler in his foxhole for more than 10 days until rescuers arrived and evacuated him to a hospital in India.

Marauders spent most days cutting their way through dense jungle, with only mules to help carry equipment and provisions. They slept on the ground and rarely changed clothes. Supplies dropped from planes were their only means of replenishing rations and ammunition. Malnutrition and the wet climate left the soldiers vulnerable to malaria, dysentery and other diseases.

The Marauders eventually captured the Myitkyina airfield, the only all-weather strip in northern Burma, their key objective, according to the U.S. Army Center of Military History. The unit was disbanded afterward.

Hamler was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He became an aircraft mechanic for Trans World Airlines and retired from it in 1985, the department said.

9. US allies reluctant on Red Sea task force

I wonder if there would be less reluctance if we were committed to ending the threat rather than just defending ships. Perhaps it is counterintuitive to some but sometimes strong offensive action is required to end the threats and ensure the safety of international commerce. Defense alone is not enough. In addition, for those who seek to avoid escalation or starting a broader war, a weak response is more likely to cause escalation than a decisive use of force especially when it is so obviously justified in this situation.

US allies reluctant on Red Sea task force

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-allies-reluctant-red-sea-task-force-2023-12-28/?utm

By Phil Stewart, David Latona and Angelo Amante

December 28, 20231:05 AM ESTUpdated an hour ago

[1/2]A Houthi fighter stands on the Galaxy Leader cargo ship in the Red Sea in this photo released November 20, 2023. Houthi Military Media/Handout via REUTERS Acquire Licensing Rights

Summary

• US says 20 nations sign up for taskforce, but has only named 12EU signals support, but Italy, Spain appear to distance themselves from taskforceAnalyst says countries concerned joining taskforce means supporting IsraelProtection of Rea Sea vital for global shipping

WASHINGTON/MADRID/ROME, Dec 28 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden hoped to present a firm international response to Yemen's Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping by launching a new maritime force, but a week after its launch many allies don't want to be associated with it, publicly, or at all.

Two of America's European allies who were listed as contributors to Operation Prosperity Guardian - Italy and Spain - issued statements appearing to distance themselves from the maritime force.

The Pentagon says the force is a defensive coalition of more than 20 nations to ensure billions of dollars' worth of commerce can flow freely through a vital shipping chokepoint in Red Sea waters off Yemen.

But nearly half of those countries have so far not come forward to acknowledge their contributions or allowed the U.S. to do so. Those contributions can range from dispatching warships to merely sending a staff officer.

The reluctance of some U.S. allies to link themselves to the effort partly reflects the fissures created by the conflict in Gaza, which has seen Biden maintain firm support for Israel even as international criticism rises over its offensive, which Gaza's health ministry says has killed more than 21,000 Palestinians.

"European governments are very worried that part of their potential electorate will turn against them," said David Hernandez, a professor of international relations at the Complutense University of Madrid, noting that the European public is increasingly critical of Israel and wary of being drawn into a conflict.

The Iran-backed Houthis have attacked or seized a dozen ships with missiles and drones since Nov. 19, trying to inflict an international cost over Israel's campaign, which followed the Oct. 7 rampage in southern Israel by Hamas militants that killed 1,200 people and took 240 hostage.

The navies of the United States, Britain and France have each shot down Houthi-launched drones or missiles.

A person familiar with Biden administration thinking said the U.S. believes escalating Houthi attacks call for an international response separate from the conflict raging in Gaza.

The Rea Sea is the entry point for ships using the Suez Canal, which handles about 12% of worldwide trade and is vital for the movement of goods between Asia and Europe. Houthi attacks have seen some ships rerouted around Africa's Cape of Good Hope, substantially increasing sailing time and costs.

Denmark's giant container firm Maersk said on Saturday it would resume shipping operations in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. But Germany's Hapag Lloyd said on Wednesday it still believes the Red Sea is too dangerous and will continue to send ships around the Cape of Good Hope.

DISCORD OVER GAZA

While the U.S. says 20 countries have signed up for its maritime task force, it has announced the names of only 12.

"We'll allow other countries, defer to them to talk about their participation," U.S. Major General Patrick Ryder told reporters last week.

The EU has signaled its support of the maritime task force with a joint statement condemning the Houthi attacks.

Although Britain, Greece and others have publicly embraced the U.S. operation, several mentioned in the U.S. announcement were quick to say they are not directly involved.

Italy's defense ministry said that it would send a ship to the Red Sea following requests from Italian ship owners and not as part of the U.S. operation. France said it supports efforts to secure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea but that its ships would remain under French command.

Spain has said it will not join Operation Prosperity Guardian and opposes using an existing EU anti-piracy mission, Atalanta, to protect Red Sea shipping. But on Wednesday, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said he was willing to consider the creation of a different mission to tackle the problem.

Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates earlier proclaimed no interest in the venture.

Public anger over Israel's Gaza offensive helps explain some of the reluctance of political leaders. A recent Yougov poll found that strong majorities of Western Europeans - particularly Spain and Italy - think Israel should stop military action in Gaza.

There is also the risk that participating countries become subject to Houthi retaliation. The person familiar with the U.S. administration's thinking says that it is this risk - rather disagreements over Gaza - driving some countries to steer clear of the effort.

That appears to be the case for India, which is unlikely to join the U.S. operation, according to a senior Indian military official. An Indian government official said the government worries that aligning itself with the U.S. could make it more of a target.

INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT NEEDED

In reality, many European and Gulf countries already participate in one of several U.S.-led military groups in the Middle East, including the 39-nation Combined Maritime Forces (CMF).

The EU's Atalanta operation already cooperates in a "reciprocal relationship" with CMF, according to a spokesperson for the group.

That means that some countries not formally joining the Red Sea maritime task force could still coordinate patrols with the U.S. Navy.

For example, while Italy - a member of Atalanta - has not said it will join Operation Prosperity Guardian, an Italian government source told Reuters that the U.S.-led coalition is satisfied with Italy's contribution.

The source added that the decision to send a naval frigate as part of existing operations was a way to speed the deployment and did not require a new parliamentary authorization.

The U.S. effort to draw international support for its Red Sea security push comes as the United States faces pressure on multiple fronts from Iran's military proxies in the region.

Beyond the Houthis in Yemen, Iran-backed militia have been attacking U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq.

So far, the United States has carried out limited retaliatory air strikes against the militia in Iraq and Syria, but it has refrained from doing so in Yemen.

Michael Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East under the Trump administration, said the Pentagon's goal with the new maritime coalition appeared to be to make any future Houthi attacks an international issue in order to divorce it from the Israel-Hamas war.

"Once the military vessels in Operation Prosperity Guardian start protecting commercial shipping and come under a direct attack, (the Houthis) will be attacking the coalition, not just the U.S.," Mulroy said.

Reporting by Phil Stewart in Washington, Jonathan Saul in London, Aislinn Laing, Belen Carreno and Charlie Devereux in Madrid; Angelo Amante in Italy; Krishn Kaushik in Delhi Editing by Don Durfee and Michael Perry

10. Biden must take a tougher stance on Iran and the Houthis

I would bet most national security professionals and probably most Americans would agree with this.

Excerpts:

To be sure, the Houthis present the kind of asymmetric threat that the U.S. military often struggles to confront. But that is no excuse for surrendering to them and Iran without so much as a threat of retaliation

There are domestic political considerations as well. Diplomatic outreach to Tehran had been a core component of Biden’s foreign policy agenda (which just 35 percent of Americans approve of, per Quinnipiac polling), and America’s inability to present a credible military threat against Tehran will only harm perceptions of Biden’s handling of America’s foreign policy.

This is not to argue that the U.S. should preemptively attack Iran, Hezbollah or the Houthis. However, throughout history, when the United States has failed to take a tough stance against actors that seek to threaten global security, we are forced to act eventually, often from a much weaker position.

With the lessons of history in mind, if President Biden wants to avoid a wider war, he must make it abundantly clear to Tehran that unless it reins in its terrorist proxies, the full force of the United States military is ready to defend the values of peace and security throughout the entire Middle East.  

Biden must take a tougher stance on Iran and the Houthis

BY DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN AND SAUL MANGEL, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 12/26/23 9:30 AM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4376748-biden-must-take-a-tougher-stance-on-iran-and-the-houthis/?utm

As the war between Israel and Hamas continues, the threat posed by Yemen’s Houthi rebels looms large, with risks not just to international shipping but also to global peace and security.

And as recent reporting by the Wall Street Journal (which has now been confirmed by the White House) reveals, Iran’s direct involvement aiding the Houthis – providing weapons and targeting assistance – means the United States and President Biden must take a tougher stance against both the Houthis and their masters in Tehran if the U.S. hopes to stabilize the region.

The establishment of an international naval task force to protect ships transiting the Red Sea is a start but will ultimately matter little if the U.S. military is shackled by political concerns over the chances of a direct confrontation with Iran, the mastermind behind much of the chaos gripping the Middle East.

Indeed, from the outset of Israel’s war against Hamas – which began when Hamas invaded Israel, slaughtered 1,200 Israelis and took roughly 240 hostages – Iran has unleashed its proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Iraq and Yemen against American and Israeli targets.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has often failed to respond, or done so only symbolically, with airstrikes on targets with little to no military value, to avoid fueling a wider war in the region.

In that same vein, the ever-present risk of a full-blown war between Israel and Hezbollah continues to grow. And should that erupt, the scale of destruction in the Middle East would be unprecedented, given Hezbollah’s considerable arsenal and Israel’s determination to permanently end the threat to their northern border.

To be clear, this is not to argue for the start of a new war between the U.S. and Iran or its proxies, but rather to point out that without a strong, robust show of force against Iran and its terrorist allies, the risks of an all-out war increase significantly.

Moreover, the Biden administration must realize that their hopes of reaching a diplomatic accord with Iran are all but dead, leaving only one remaining option to rollback Iran’s malign influence short of war: the credible threat of an overwhelming military response.

The costs of allowing the Houthis to act without fear of consequences are already being realized. After multiple cargo ships were struck by Houthi rockets, the world’s major shipping companies have announced they will divert cargo away from the Red Sea and Suez Canal routes in favor of the much-longer trip around the Horn of Africa, which will raise costs and further fuel inflation.

Further, and more importantly, allowing Iranian-backed terrorist groups to act with impunity directly threatens the thousands of American soldiers based in Iraq and Syria who have come under dozens of rocket and missile attacks since the war between Israel and Hamas began.

There are also invisible, but arguably more important, costs: The loss of America’s deterrence is not tangible, but it is more dangerous than increased prices. The Biden administration has now overseen the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and failed to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine. And now our adversaries – both nation states and terrorist groups – feel they can threaten the U.S. and our allies with impunity.

At the head of this snake is Iran, which has long viewed its support for terrorist groups stretching from Lebanon to Yemen as a strategic priority – a way to attack Israel and the U.S. with plausible deniability – including reportedly training Hamas members just weeks before their Oct. 7 attack.

Iran has funded, trained and armed these groups. But it is highly unlikely that Tehran would be willing to risk letting these groups drag it into a direct military clash against the United States — a risk that Biden must make the mullahs understand is closer than Tehran may feel comfortable with.

For now, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear: The Iranian regime feels it can threaten the U.S. and Israel, and even attack American troops without fear of reprisal from a White House fearful of igniting a war in an election year.

Biden’s fear of a wider war is also handcuffing Israel, which would prefer to respond to Houthi drone and rocket attacks against the southern Israeli city of Eilat but is being held back by the White House, which has told Israel the U.S. will handle the threat.

Immediately after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, Biden admirably dispatched two aircraft carriers to the Middle East as a show of force, and a warning to Iran, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups not to intervene. But the warning was not taken seriously. If it had been, rebels armed with little aside from cheap drones and Iranian rockets would not feel empowered to declare sovereignty over one of the world’s most important waterways.

To be sure, the Houthis present the kind of asymmetric threat that the U.S. military often struggles to confront. But that is no excuse for surrendering to them and Iran without so much as a threat of retaliation

There are domestic political considerations as well. Diplomatic outreach to Tehran had been a core component of Biden’s foreign policy agenda (which just 35 percent of Americans approve of, per Quinnipiac polling), and America’s inability to present a credible military threat against Tehran will only harm perceptions of Biden’s handling of America’s foreign policy.

This is not to argue that the U.S. should preemptively attack Iran, Hezbollah or the Houthis. However, throughout history, when the United States has failed to take a tough stance against actors that seek to threaten global security, we are forced to act eventually, often from a much weaker position.

With the lessons of history in mind, if President Biden wants to avoid a wider war, he must make it abundantly clear to Tehran that unless it reins in its terrorist proxies, the full force of the United States military is ready to defend the values of peace and security throughout the entire Middle East.  

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” Saul Mangel is a senior strategist at Schoen Cooperman Research. 

11. New York Times sues Microsoft, ChatGPT maker OpenAI over copyright infringement

New York Times sues Microsoft, ChatGPT maker OpenAI over copyright infringement

CNBC · by Ryan Browne · December 27, 2023

PUBLISHED WED, DEC 27 20238:40 AM ESTUPDATED WED, DEC 27 20235:06 PM EST

thumbnail

Ryan Browne

@RYAN_BROWNE_

SHARE

KEY POINTS

The New York Times on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, accusing them of copyright infringement and abusing the newspaper’s intellectual property.

In a court filing, the publisher said it seeks to hold Microsoft and OpenAI to account for “billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages” it believes it is owed for “unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable works.”

The Times accused Microsoft and OpenAI of creating a business model based on “mass copyright infringement,” stating their AI systems “exploit and, in many cases, retain large portions of the copyrightable expression contained in those works.”

watch now

VIDEO1:0401:04

New York Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft for copyright infringement

Squawk Box

The New York Times on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, creator of the popular AI chatbot ChatGPT, accusing the companies of copyright infringement and abusing the newspaper's intellectual property to train large language models.

Microsoft both invests in and supplies OpenAI, providing it with access to the company's Azure cloud computing technology.

The publisher said in a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that it seeks to hold Microsoft and OpenAI to account for the "billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages" it believes it is owed for the "unlawful copying and use of The Times's uniquely valuable works."

The Times said in an emailed statement that it "recognizes the power and potential of GenAI for the public and for journalism," but added that journalistic material should be used for commercial gain with permission from the original source.

"These tools were built with and continue to use independent journalism and content that is only available because we and our peers reported, edited, and fact-checked it at high cost and with considerable expertise," the Times said.

The New York Times Building in New York City on February 1, 2022.

Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

"Settled copyright law protects our journalism and content," the Times added. "If Microsoft and OpenAI want to use our work for commercial purposes, the law requires that they first obtain our permission. They have not done so."

CNBC has reached out to Microsoft and OpenAI for comment.

The Times is represented in the proceedings by Susman Godfrey, the litigation firm that represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation suit against Fox News that culminated in a $787.5 million million settlement.

Susman Godfrey is also representing author Julian Sancton and other writers in a separate lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft that accuses the companies of using copyrighted materials without permission to train several versions of ChatGPT.

'Mass copyright infringement'

The Times is one of numerous media organizations pursuing compensation from companies behind some of the most advanced artificial intelligence models, for the alleged usage of their content to train AI programs.

OpenAI is the creator of GPT, a large language model that can produce humanlike content in response to user prompts. It uses billions of parameters' worth of information, which is obtained from public web data up until 2021.

Media publishers and content creators are finding their materials being used and reimagined by generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Dall-E, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. In numerous cases, the content the programs produce can look similar to the source material.

OpenAI has tried to allay news publishers' concerns. In December, the company announced a partnership with Axel Springer — the parent company of Business Insider, Politico, and European outlets Bild and Welt — which would license its content to OpenAI in return for a fee.

The financial terms of the deal weren't disclosed.

In its lawsuit Wednesday, the Times accused Microsoft and OpenAI of creating a business model based on "mass copyright infringement," stating that the companies' AI systems were "used to create multiple reproductions of The Times's intellectual property for the purpose of creating the GPT models that exploit and, in many cases, retain large portions of the copyrightable expression contained in those works."

Publishers are concerned that, with the advent of generative AI chatbots, fewer people will click through to news sites, resulting in shrinking traffic and revenues.

The Times included numerous examples in the suit of instances where GPT-4 produced altered versions of material published by the newspaper.

In one example, the filing shows OpenAI's software producing almost identical text to a Times article about predatory lending practices in New York City's taxi industry.

But in OpenAI's version, GPT-4 excludes a critical piece of context about the sum of money the city made selling taxi medallions and collecting taxes on private sales.

In its suit, the Times said Microsoft and OpenAI's GPT models "directly compete with Times content."

The AI models also limited the Times' commercial opportunities by altering its content. For example, the publisher alleges GPT outputs remove links to products featured in its Wirecutter app, a product reviews platform, "thereby depriving The Times of the opportunity to receive referral revenue and appropriating that opportunity for Defendants."

The Times also alleged Microsoft and OpenAI models produce content similar to that generated by the newspaper, and that their use of its content to train LLMs without consent "constitutes free-riding on The Times's significant efforts and investment of human capital to gather this information."

The Times said Microsoft and OpenAI's LLMs "can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style," and "wrongly attribute false information to The Times," and "deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue."

— CNBC's Rohan Goswami contributed to this report.

Don't miss these stories from CNBC PRO:

• Official Wall Street outlook: Here's where strategists see the stock market going in 2024
• Here's where to invest $50,000 heading into 2024, according to market pros
• Morgan Stanley prefers 'boring' non-AI tech stocks for 2024. Here are its top global picks
• Bank of America reveals its 4 top biotech picks for 2024 — and gives one 166% upside
• CD rates are dropping. Here's where to find the highest payouts

CNBC · by Ryan Browne · December 27, 2023

12. Biden needs to strike back hard against Houthis to protect Red Sea — and US influence

Biden needs to strike back hard against Houthis to protect Red Sea — and US influence

New York Post · by Mark Dubowitz View Author Archive Get author RSS feed · December 27, 2023

More On: houthis

Houthis’ Red Sea attacks a part of Iranian ‘Axis of Resistance’ plot to ‘defeat US’: experts warn

US forces shoot down 17 Houthi missiles, drones in Red Sea

Joe Biden poured the gasoline, now our enemies are burning the Middle East

Justices must toss Colo. ruling, the new oldest hatred and other commentary

Iran is on the offensive.

On the day after Christmas, in the space of just 10 hours, US forces in the Red Sea had to shoot down 12 suicide drones, three anti-ship ballistic missiles and two land-attack cruise missiles, all of them launched by the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist group in Yemen.

The Houthis are torturers whose official motto is “Death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory to Islam.”

Subtle they aren’t.

Yet one of President Biden’s first decisions after taking office was to remove the Houthis from the official US list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

You can draw a straight line from there to the threat in the Red Sea today.

Reward the bad guys for bad behavior and you get more of it.

The White House insisted it was taking the Houthis off the terror list for humanitarian reasons, but the real story is it was one of many concessions to the Houthis’ patrons in Tehran from an administration desperate to avoid trouble in the Middle East.

The predictable result was more trouble, not less.

Yemeni men carrying a model of the Houthi-hijacked ship Galaxy Leader at a protest in Sana’a, Yemen on Dec. 22, 2023. Photo by Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images

If Biden wants to protect US and allied naval forces in the Red Sea while keeping its shipping lanes open, he needs to show the Houthis they will pay a heavy price for attacking the United States and its friends.

What Biden should not do is order more pinprick counterstrikes, which is how he has handled more than 100 attacks in less than three months on US troops in Syria and Iraq by Iranian proxy forces in those countries.

see also

houthis

US forces shoot down 17 Houthi missiles, drones in Red Sea

Pinpricks have little deterrent value, so the attacks on our troops in Syria and Iraq continue.

Rather, the president should put the Houthis back on the terror list and direct the US military to destroy substantial military assets they control.

American forces should also target any naval assets supporting Houthi attacks that belong to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — the US-designated terror organization that executes Tehran’s plans for foreign aggression.

The December 26 attacks were hardly the Houthis’ first. Three days earlier, an American destroyer, the USS Laboon, shot down four drones and two anti-ship ballistic missiles launched from Houthi-controlled territory as the ship patrolled international waters in the southern Red Sea.

The same day, Houthi drones attacked two commercial vessels traveling through the area.

One of the drones hit an oil tanker, while the other was a near miss.

Fortunately, no injuries were reported in either incident.

The week before, one of the Houthis’ ballistic missiles hit a different tanker.

see also

guest column

Biden does nothing as Iran-backed Houthis humiliate us

Brazenly, last month, the Houthis seized the cargo ship Galaxy Leader and continue to hold the ship and 25 of its crew members hostage — so Hamas is not the only kidnapper on the Iranian payroll.

These attacks are not just harassment but a well-planned campaign of economic warfare the IRGC has designed to put pressure on Israel and US-aligned Arab states.

Every ship that passes through the Suez Canal has to traverse the Red Sea, which lies just to its south.

If the US Navy loses control of these high seas, shipping costs will spike and shipping companies could refuse to dock in Israel, Egypt and other Middle Eastern ports of call.

The consequences for the global economy and international security would be severe.

BP — one of the world’s largest energy companies — announced on Dec. 18 it would temporarily pause the shipping of oil, natural gas and other energy supplies through the Red Sea due to Houthi attacks.

If the company lacks confidence in American resolve, that is understandable.

To address the Houthi threat, the United States has formed Operation Prosperity Guardian, a U.S.-led international mission to safeguard commercial vessels in the area.

see also

President Biden must face reality: It’s time to act vs. Iran

The massive Danish shipping company Maersk, which had suspended travel through the Red Sea, said it plans to resume shipping once the mission begins to operate.

But this is merely playing defense.

The mission may make it harder for Houthi drones and missiles to hit their targets but imposes no price on the group for attacking in the first place.

If this is the best Biden can do, then Iran and its partners may step up attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf or Hezbollah — Iran’s proxy in Lebanon — could even attack ships in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Tehran’s goal is to destroy the Jewish state and expel America from the Middle East. Its funding, training and provision of weapons made possible Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre.

Its proxies are now escalating on every front, while Iran itself hangs back, still reaping the rewards of Biden’s policy of maximum deference.

The regime in Tehran is more than glad to fight to the last Palestinian, Yemeni, Lebanese, Iraqi and Syrian.

Its multifront war against the United States and Israel will end only when the regime itself has to pay the price for aggression.

Mark Dubowitz is the chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Iran sanctioned him in 2019.

New York Post · by Social Links for Mark Dubowitz View Author Archive Get author RSS feed · December 27, 2023

13. Ukraine Doesn’t Need All Its Territory to Defeat Putin

Excerpts:

The conflict could still take an unexpected turn, as it has before. But the prospect at this juncture is of a long war of attrition, inflicting ever more damage on Ukraine, sacrificing ever more lives and spreading instability over Europe. The way things are going, “Ukraine will for the foreseeable future harbor Europe’s most dangerous geopolitical fault line,” argues Michael Kimmage, author of “Collisions,” a new history of the war. He foresees an endless conflict that deepens Russia’s alienation from the West, enshrines Putinism and delays Ukraine’s integration into Europe.

That, at least, is the bleak prognosis if victory in the war continues to be defined in territorial terms, specifically the goal of driving Russia out of all the Ukrainian lands it occupied in 2014 and over the past 22 months, including Crimea and a thick wedge of southeastern Ukraine, altogether about a fifth of Ukraine’s sovereign territory.

But regaining territory is the wrong way to imagine the best outcome. True victory for Ukraine is to rise from the hell of the war as a strong, independent, prosperous and secure state, firmly planted in the West. It would be exactly what Mr. Putin most feared from a neighboring state with deep historical ties to Russia, and it would be a testament to what Russia promised to become in 1991, when both countries broke free of the Soviet Union, before Mr. Putin entered the Kremlin and succumbed to grievance and the lure of dictatorial power and imperial illusion.

OPINION

SERGE SCHMEMANN

Ukraine Doesn’t Need All Its Territory to Defeat Putin

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/opinion/ukraine-military-aid.html?utm

Dec. 27, 2023

Credit...Jae C. Hong/Associated Pres​s

• Share full article
• 
  
• 872

By Serge Schmemann

Mr. Schmemann is a member of the editorial board.

Want the latest stories related to Russia and Ukraine? Sign up for the newsletter Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send them to your inbox.

The new report in The New York Times that Russia is quietly signaling a readiness to freeze the war in Ukraine is both suspicious and tantalizing.

The caveats are many: An armistice would leave Vladimir Putin in control of about a fifth of Ukrainian territory. He is not trustworthy; he could use prolonged negotiations to bolster his forces for a renewed push, or to lull Western lawmakers into cutting aid for Ukraine; he may be stalling in the hope that Donald Trump, his preferred choice for president, will return to the White House and stiff Ukraine.

But if Mr. Putin turns out to be serious, Ukraine should not pass up an opportunity to end the bloodshed. Recovered territory is not the only measure of victory in this war.

A painful reality check shows the 600-mile-long Ukrainian-Russian front in a figurative and literal freeze, draining Ukrainian resources and lives without much prospect for change in the foreseeable future. The much-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive of the past six months exacted a huge cost in casualties and matériel, but barely nudged the front lines. Ukraine’s top military commander has said the fight is at a “stalemate” — a notion deemed taboo not long ago — and only an unlikely technological breakthrough by one side or the other could break it. As the year draws to an end, lawmakers in the United States and Europe have separately held up critically needed aid packages for Ukraine, and there’s no certainty how they will fare in the new year.

The conflict could still take an unexpected turn, as it has before. But the prospect at this juncture is of a long war of attrition, inflicting ever more damage on Ukraine, sacrificing ever more lives and spreading instability over Europe. The way things are going, “Ukraine will for the foreseeable future harbor Europe’s most dangerous geopolitical fault line,” argues Michael Kimmage, author of “Collisions,” a new history of the war. He foresees an endless conflict that deepens Russia’s alienation from the West, enshrines Putinism and delays Ukraine’s integration into Europe.

That, at least, is the bleak prognosis if victory in the war continues to be defined in territorial terms, specifically the goal of driving Russia out of all the Ukrainian lands it occupied in 2014 and over the past 22 months, including Crimea and a thick wedge of southeastern Ukraine, altogether about a fifth of Ukraine’s sovereign territory.

But regaining territory is the wrong way to imagine the best outcome. True victory for Ukraine is to rise from the hell of the war as a strong, independent, prosperous and secure state, firmly planted in the West. It would be exactly what Mr. Putin most feared from a neighboring state with deep historical ties to Russia, and it would be a testament to what Russia promised to become in 1991, when both countries broke free of the Soviet Union, before Mr. Putin entered the Kremlin and succumbed to grievance and the lure of dictatorial power and imperial illusion.

Any talk of armistice is understandably difficult for Volodymyr Zelensky, the intrepid Ukrainian president who has steadfastly sought to project a morale bolstering picture of steady battlefield successes. It would be very painful, and politically very difficult for him, to halt the fighting without punishing Russia and by leaving it in control of so much Ukrainian land. After his senior military commander, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, described the true state of affairs as a stalemate in an interview with The Economist in November, Mr. Zelensky bristled at what he perceived as defeatism.

But to explore an armistice is not to walk away. On the contrary, the fight must go on, even when talks begin, to maintain the military and economic pressure on Russia. Those people who are resisting continued aid to Ukraine, whether some Republicans in Congress or Viktor Orban in Hungary, must not be allowed to abandon the Ukrainians now. If Mr. Putin is seriously looking for a cease-fire, he is doing so on the presumption that the alternative is a continued slaughter of his soldiers, and that there is nothing more he can achieve through destruction, violence or bluster.

And stopping the fight is not to grant Mr. Putin a victory, however loudly he may claim one. Ukraine and much of the world will not accept his annexation of any Ukrainian territory. Russia’s army has been mauled and humiliated and the country’s economy has been severed from the West. Mr. Putin launched the invasion 22 months ago convinced that it really would be a “special military operation” — that the Ukrainian government would promptly cave, that the West would prove impotent, and that a Moscow-installed quisling would ensure Ukraine never became independent, successful, free or joined to the European Union.

Instead, Russia was forced into a chaotic retreat from Kyiv and plunged into a terribly costly war with a stalwart Ukraine backed by billions of dollars worth of American and European arms and funds. It took Russian forces, led by mercenaries, more than a year and massive casualties to capture one city, Bakhmut; another key town, Avdiivka, is still in Ukrainian hands despite wave after wave of soldiers, many of them ill-prepared reservists and conscripted convicts, thrown against it.

Untold thousands of Russian soldiers have been sent to their slaughter and untold thousands more of Russia’s best and brightest have fled the country, whether to avoid the war or imprisonment for opposing it. Mismanagement of the war prompted a short-lived mutiny by the head of the mercenary Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, followed by his death in a plane crash almost certainly engineered by the Kremlin.

Crushing sanctions have put an end to nearly all business with the West and have fueled spiraling inflation, although Mr. Putin has found ways for his cronies to profit nonetheless. And while the Russian economy got a short-term boost from feeding the military machine and filling the gaps left by sanctions, long-term prospects are bleak.

In many ways, Mr. Putin has achieved the opposite of what he set out to do. The Ukrainian nation whose existence he pooh-poohed has been steeled in fire, and on Dec. 14, the European Union formally agreed to open accession negotiations with Ukraine — the very westward shift Mr. Putin went to war to block. Finland has joined NATO and Sweden is edging closer to membership. These are not the elements of victory.

They are also no reason for false hopes. After his recent visit to Washington, Mr. Zelensky should have no illusion that the American spigot is wide open, especially if Mr. Trump returns to the White House. At his joint news conference with Mr. Zelensky, President Biden, whose mantra had long been to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” rephrased the pledge to read “as long as we can.” In the European Union, Mr. Orban, the Hungarian prime minister and an admirer of Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump, has tied up approval of another 50 billion euros for Ukraine.

It is understandable that the prospect of pumping endless resources into a stalled military operation would incur resistance. It would be harder for the skeptics to question additional aid if there was a prospect of an end to the fighting and a shift to the reconstruction of Ukraine.

An armistice would not be easy to achieve or to police. But conversations and writings about various potential models have been quietly circulating in government and think tank circles. The authors of the most recent one, Samuel Charap of the RAND Corporation and Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations, argued that however dim the prospect of peace, the war “will probably end through some sort of negotiation.”

The first stage of talks, they proposed, would be focused on agreeing to stop hostilities, disengaging the forces and installing a third-party monitoring mission. The next hurdle would be to devise a security arrangement that would give Ukraine the assurances it needs while taking account of Russia’s opposition to a full NATO member on its western border. Many other issues would enter into the mix — Russian war crimes, reparations, sanctions. And any armistice would be far short of a final settlement.

But the only way to find out if Mr. Putin is serious about a cease-fire, and whether one can be worked out, is to give it a try.

Halting Russia well short of its goals and turning to the reconstruction and modernization of Ukraine would be lasting tributes to the Ukrainians who have made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the existence of their nation. And no temporary armistice would forever preclude Ukraine from recovering all of its land.

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

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

A correction was made on Dec. 27, 2023: An earlier version of this essay misstated on which border Russia is opposed to having a full NATO member. It is on its western border, not eastern. 

When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more

Serge Schmemann joined The Times in 1980 and worked as the bureau chief in Moscow, Bonn and Jerusalem and at the United Nations. He was editorial page editor of The International Herald Tribune in Paris from 2003 to 2013. 

​14. The Army’s first-ever lead special trial counsel just got fired for behaving ethically

Huh? Is this cancel culture run amok? A leader cannot remind his subordinates they must do their jobs to the best of their ability. Or worse the people who have canceled this judge actually support the concept of guilty unless by a miracle proven innocent for all sexual assault defendants.

The Army’s first-ever lead special trial counsel just got fired for behaving ethically

BY MICHAEL NEWTON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 12/27/23 7:00 AM ET

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4377537-the-armys-first-ever-lead-special-trial-counsel-is-being-fired-for-behaving-ethically/?utm

Last December, Brigadier General Warren Wells was appointed and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Army’s Lead Special Trial Counsel. The newly created position was part of a sweeping effort by Congress to reform the military justice system to insulate against unlawful command influence in cases involving serious criminal offenses, such as those involving sexual assault and violence.

At the time of Wells’s appointment, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth hailed him as “the experienced leader the Army needs to lead the Office of Special Trial Counsel and ensure its independent oversight of the Army’s most complex cases.” 

Yet earlier this month, Wells was relieved of his position over a single decade-old email. This came after he had served only a year as the Army’s top independent prosecutor and within weeks of the statutory deadline for the new office to become fully operational.

In 2013, serving in his leadership role, Wells had urged a group of fellow defense attorneys to uphold their duty in the face of high-pressure sexual assault cases. The email read in part, “hopefully a Soldier will be able to get a fair trial. You and your teams are now the ONLY line of defense against false allegations… [y]ou literally are the personal defenders of those who no one will now defend, even when all signs indicate innocence.”

That email was the essence of leadership. Wells exhorted defense counsel to do their job and remain independent from outside influence. Service members deserve nothing less from appointed defense counsel. What American would want otherwise?

By firing Wells, the Secretary of the Army endangers the professional ethos that is the cornerstone of our armed forces. Political commissars operating in Joseph Stalin’s Russia or implementing Vladimir Putin’s personal desires would understand her desire to control independent thinking and professional practice among sworn public servants.

As a retired Army Judge Advocate, I have never previously thought that I should condition advice to students based on the possibility that, if they take their legal careers into the armed services, they might be obligated to sacrifice professional judgement or ethical obligations in doing so. This has now changed with the winds of political correctness blowing across President Biden’s Army, potentially devastating combat effectiveness. 

Secretary Wormuth fired Wells, she said, because she had lost “trust and confidence” springing from the old email. Her decision signals that fear of political recrimination should color the advice of active-duty attorneys acting on behalf of clients.

The irony is that Wells’s removal vindicates his caution from a decade ago to his subordinate attorneys, that they should perform their duties in the face of criticism by “those with an agenda.” 

The ethical calling of defense attorneys is to zealously represent their clients. Secretary Wormuth has signaled that compliance with professional and ethical duties is insufficient. Careers now depend on shifting political winds.

This will lead lead defense counsel to give weak or ineffective legal advice. It is also the pathway to unlawful command influence that rattles in any American family sending daughters and sons into uniformed service.

We owe service members unfettered legal advice in pursuit of their basic human rights to fair and independent proceedings. Representation of clients cannot coexist with considering the interests of either military or civilian superiors. Any other rule creates inescapable perceptions of unfair corruption of supposedly impartial trial processes. 

Today, our all-volunteer Army already faces serious recruiting headwinds. This is just one more reason for smart and well-educated young people to avoid serving as officers.

Wormuth had every official right in her role to shape the United States Army to her liking. By the same token, Biden owns this problem. The secretary of the Army serves at his pleasure. He has constitutional authority to request her resignation for precisely the rationale she employed in eroding the independence of uniformed lawyers.

Biden, and he alone, can attest that the current secretary of the Army has “lost my trust and confidence.” Anyone who cares about the integrity, apolitical professionalism, and preparedness of the U.S. military should demand that he stand for these principles.

Professor Michael Newton is a West Point graduate and former U.S. Army Judge Advocate. He currently serves as a professor in the Practice of Law and Director International Legal Studies Program at Vanderbilt University Law School. 

15. Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Offices of Special Trial Counsel

Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on the Offices of Special Trial Counsel

defense.gov

An official website of the United States Government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov

Dec. 28, 2023 |×

Share

I am pleased to announce that the four Offices of Special Trial Counsel—within the Army, the Department of the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps—have reached full operational capability. With this milestone, prosecutorial discretion for 13 serious criminal offenses will be shifted away from commanders to specially trained and independent judge advocates who reside within the Offices of Special Trial Counsel and report directly to the Secretaries of the Military Departments.

This landmark change to the U.S. military justice system will significantly strengthen the independent prosecution of sexual assault and other serious criminal offenses in the Department of Defense. It is the most important reform to our military justice system since the creation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1950. This reform aims to help strengthen accountability and increase all of our service members’ trust in the fairness and integrity of the military justice system. I am grateful to all those whose hard work, determination, and resilience helped us to reach this day.

The men and women of the United States military selflessly step up to defend our country, and we have a solemn duty to take the best possible care of them. Today’s milestone will help modernize the military justice system and is a critical step in ensuring our service members’ access to fair and impartial justice.

Austin Defense Secretary irc sexual assault Sexual Assault Awareness

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

defense.gov

16.  Is US military power reaching its limit? The American navy is losing control over the high seas

Is US military power reaching its limit?

unherd.com · by Kat Rosenfield

by Philip Pilkington

Wednesday, 27

December 2023

Share:

Analysis

07:00

The American navy is losing control over the high seas

by Philip Pilkington

US Navy ships perform a military exercise in the Red Sea, 2020. Credit: Getty

During the Christmas period, America’s role as global policeman has been coming under scrutiny.

The origins of the story go back weeks, with Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea in response to Israel’s war in Gaza. These attacks culminated in the decision by global shipping companies to avoid transit through the region due to the heightened risk.

As a result, the Houthis have now enacted a de facto naval blockade — without possessing a navy. In response, on 18 December, the Pentagon announced Operation Prosperity Guardian, but many allies — such as Spain, Italy and France — declined US command over their navies in the region.

For a country whose global dominance rests on control over the high seas, this was bad optics. Shipping companies, however, were willing to return to the region now that they were under a naval umbrella. “With the Operation Prosperity Guardian initiative in operation, we are preparing to allow for vessels to resume transit through the Red Sea both eastbound and westbound,” the Danish shipping giant Maersk said in a statement.

But it does not appear as though the attacks have stopped. US Central Command reported that on 23 December the Houthis fired two anti-ship ballistic missiles and four unmanned aerial drones. Two container ships were attacked but neither were damaged, with the US Navy shooting down the drones. While this may seem like a victory, it shows that the Houthis are not deterred. Eventually, one strike is bound to get through.

That is because the weapons that the Houthis are using, most of which are of Iranian origin but some of which are domestically produced, are extremely cheap and quick to build. The air defence that the US Navy is using is neither cheap nor quick to build — much less to transport to the Red Sea for resupply.

Contemporary drone and missile technology is reshaping the global battlefield in ways that are rendering aspects of modern military technology too expensive. Politico quotes an unnamed official from the Pentagon who highlights that the US Navy is shooting down drones that cost $2,000 with missiles that cost $2 million. “The cost offset is not on our side,” the official said.

How long can this go on for? The Houthis can continue harassing ships for as long as they care to. But the US Navy is burning through expensive weapons trying to stop them (a similar problem to that faced by Israel’s Iron Dome). It is only a matter of time before one of the Houthi weapons slips through naval air defences — if another container ship is hit, can global shipping companies really justify transit through the Red Sea?

We are already seeing competition of sorts entering the arena with the collapse of the American guarantee. The Indian Navy is deploying three warships to the Arabian Sea after attacks on an Israeli-linked vessel headed to India. State actors are starting to realise that they can extend their own naval and commercial power by getting in on the action of “multipolar naval policing”. This will likely soon be followed with bilateral and multilateral diplomatic arrangements and possibly even bespoke shipping insurance arrangements.

While the US Navy is tied down in the Red Sea, the Royal Navy has dispatched a warship to Guyana over a disputed territory with Venezuela. What Guyana and the Red Sea conflict share is that both are related to global oil markets. Oil shipments through the Suez Canal tanked after the Houthi attacks, and Guyana has come to be widely seen as an alternative source of oil after relations between the US and Saudi Arabia soured.

Evidently, Pax Americana is fraying at the edges. How much longer can it last?

Contribute to UnHerd

We welcome applications to contribute to UnHerd – please fill out the form below including examples of your previously published work.

Please click here to submit your pitch.

Advertise with us

Please click here to view our media pack for more information on advertising and partnership opportunities with UnHerd.

Report this comment

unherd.com · by Kat Rosenfield

​17. Don’t Give Up on a Better Russia – An Opposition Activist in Moscow on How His Country Can Change

I wonder if there is not some nerve agent or polonium exposure in this activist's future.

Excerpts:

To help activists create that peaceful, secure, and prosperous Russia, the West can do more than make encouraging statements. Western officials should offer specific promises and, when possible, act now to support Russians trying to flee the regime. They should offer ways out to accomplices of Putin who are willing to atone. Putin's propaganda machine will try to hide Western overtures, but a coordinated anti-Putin, antiwar, pro-Russian policy will inevitably seep through. It should reach establishment figures quickly, given that they are both less influenced by propaganda and have easier access to outside information.

Taking these measures, of course, will not by itself change Russia. Foreign states ultimately have little power over my country’s domestic politics. At the end of the day, only Russians can bring democracy and peace to Russia. But these measures would remove some of the roadblocks that make the job of Russian activists—including mine—harder than is needed. It can help us show other Russians that our country can have a future free of isolation, one where they will have more opportunities to prosper than they do right now. It can help us persuade Russians that, if Moscow abandons its aggression, their children will not have to go to the frontline to earn $2,000 per month. The West can, in other words, help Russians stop fearing democratization and an end to the war in Ukraine.

This, in turn, will increase the chances that Russia starts addressing the evils it has inflicted. Ukraine would then hopefully get peace and reparations. Russians would get a better life. And the United States and Europe would get a predictable and constructive partner instead of a hostile dictatorship.

Don’t Give Up on a Better Russia

An Opposition Activist in Moscow on How His Country Can Change

By Aleksei Miniailo

December 28, 2023

Foreign Affairs · by Aleksei Miniailo · December 28, 2023

February 24, 2022, was the worst day of my life. When I woke up to news that Russia was invading Ukraine, it felt impossible to believe. I knew that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been massing troops along Ukraine’s borders, and I had read that Western intelligence agencies believed war was imminent. A couple of days before the invasion began, I had even submitted an application to hold an antiwar rally in Moscow. And yet the idea that Putin would try conquering Europe’s largest country—one with so many cultural and familial ties to Russia—still felt unfathomable. I hoped the headlines were wrong, and that journalists had mistaken another provocation for a full-blown attack.

Alas, they had not. As I read more, it quickly became evident that the assault was real. In photos and videos, I saw explosions on the streets where I once walked with my friends. My relatives in Zaporizhzhia were writing to me from a missile shelter. As a Russian opposition activist, I am no stranger to horrible Kremlin behavior: I have protested against rigged elections, seen my colleagues get arrested, and spent two months in jail myself—barely avoiding charges that carried a prison term of up to 15 years. But watching the invasion begin was more terrible than anything I had experienced before.

After it became clear the invasion was real, I gathered with friends and allies to brainstorm what we could do. It would have been easy, in that moment, for us to fall into despair. But as activists and researchers, we knew that Putin’s regime was less steadfast than it seems. We had seen Putin use polls and elections to create an impression, both within Russia and outside the country, that he has overwhelming support—an impression which helps him both control Russians and influence foreign politicians. And we worried that many Russian pollsters would struggle to adjust their methods to a wartime environment.

We began a research project, called Chronicles, in which social scientists would endeavor to understand how deep Russians’ support for the invasion actually goes. Pro-war sentiment appears to be much weaker than many think. Although most Russians passively accept the invasion, only 12 percent of Russians can boast at least a minimally coherent pro-war position: one where they simultaneously declare support for the war, say they would not accept a Russian loss, and believe that military spending should be the state’s priority instead of social spending. According to our research, the percentage of Russians who say they would support withdrawing from Ukraine without reaching Moscow’s military goals is higher than the percentage who say they would oppose such a decision—40 percent to 33 percent. (The latter figure has decreased from 47 percent in February.)

Russia’s elite has mixed feelings, too. According to many Western analysts, the Russian establishment is unified in support of Putin’s "special military operation." But relatively few Russian elites are vocal about their backing. Many of them—including those who are named among Putin's possible successors—have, at various points, tried to distance themselves from the war. And even some of the war’s biggest supporters appear unhappy with Putin’s leadership. Yevgeny Prigozhin's mutiny, which the former overall commander of Russia’s forces in Ukraine may have known about in advance, was a great illustration of this dissatisfaction. To end the mutiny, after all, Putin had to humiliate himself by negotiating with Prigozhin, a person who massacred army officers and publicly called Putin what, in Russian, translates to “accomplished old asshole.” The fact that Prigozhin later died in a mysterious plane crash hardly makes this outcome less embarrassing.

To help end the war and bring about democratic change, activists are working to capitalize on disaffection among both the establishment and ordinary people. Our team, for instance, is preparing a grassroots project that will paint a picture of what everyday life in a democratic Russia might be like. We believe that focusing on day-to-day issues is essential: to most people, the idea of better schools, hospitals, and cities is way more comprehensible and motivating than calls for establishing the rule of law and holding free elections. We must persuade Russians that, if the country works on improving itself instead of fighting abroad, they will be more prosperous and secure instead of poorer and more vulnerable. If Russians are convinced this is true, more of them might decide that the high costs of challenging the regime are worth the benefits.

Within Russia, pro-war sentiment appears to be much weaker than many think.

Western voices and policies often make this task—already tough—even tougher, by trying to collectively punish all Russians and treating the country as irredeemable, even with an end to the conflict and change in leadership. Most of Europe, for instance, is reluctant to accept Russians trying to flee Putin’s regime. Borders with Russia are being closed for ordinary Russians (although oligarchs still find ways to get out). Some Americans and Europeans have even talked about breaking Russia apart, arguing that it is the only way to overcome Moscow’s imperial legacy and make Europe safe. Such statements inadvertently bolster Putin’s claim that the war in Ukraine is defensive, and that he is protecting Russians from a rapacious NATO. It has driven the much of the country’s elite even closer to Putin, even though many of them lost billions of dollars because of his conflict.

A different course would be more effective. In order to steer both the Russian establishment's and ordinary people's opinions toward returning occupied territories to Ukraine, the United States and Europe need to grant protection to people running from Russia, and they need to stop discriminating against Russians abroad. They have to make more compelling assurances that they will not try to dismember Russia, and they need to offer some form of amnesty to officials who oversee a democratic transition. Finally, and most important, they have to lay out a clear roadmap of how, and under what conditions, they will lift both individual and national sanctions.

This program may not satisfy Ukrainians and some of their allies, many of whom want to see Russia suffer for its malevolent deeds. It will also not inspire idealists, who believe that Russians should fight against the war and for democracy simply because doing so is right. As an idealist myself, I understand the disappointment.

But Ukraine, the West, and ordinary Russians should have a unified interest: ending the war as soon as possible, returning occupied territories to Ukraine, and returning to a peaceful life. The United States and Europe can help achieve these aims by convincing our peers that withdrawing and democratizing will have major benefits—instead of serious costs.

RISKS AND RETURNS

Individual decisions are typically motivated by potential risks and rewards. And for Russians today, the costs of pushing for democracy far exceed the benefits.

Moscow has long made sure that dissent is dangerous. Even before the war, simply attending a protest could easily land someone in jail, sometimes for years. But since the war began, the penalties have grown. Today, basic acts of resistance—like wearing a yellow T-shirt and blue jeans (matching the yellow and blue colors of the Ukrainian flag)—can land someone in jail. Depending on the scale of the action, the sentence might be short, but in a country where most people live on a salary of around $500 per month, even a brief period of detention can deprive people of the ability to feed their children. And lengthy sentences are common. Writing an article criticizing Putin or making social media posts calling for an end to the "Special Military Operation" can lead to prison terms that might extend for up to 15 years.

Those are the legal punishments. Many Russian journalists and politicians have also been assassinated or nearly assassinated for criticizing the government during Putin’s reign. In 2003, Yuri Shchekochikhin, a Russian investigative journalist, died in suspicious circumstances; relatives, colleagues and civil society actors believe he was poisoned. Boris Nemtsov, one of the country’s most prominent past opposition leaders, was shot dead in 2015 near the Kremlin. Last June, when the antiwar activist Anatoly Berezikov died in detention, his lawyer said it was because of torture. Many other antifascist activists have been tortured—including by being electrocuted naked. Alexei Navalny, Russia’s most famous opposition leader, barely survived being poisoned by Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB; today, he is in prison. Vladimir Kara-Murza, an opposition activist, survived two poisoning attempts. Now, he is in jail for 25 years.

Since February 24, thousands upon thousands of Russians have stood up against the invasion. But they have not stopped it. More than 20,000 have, however, been detained by the police, many of whom were then beaten and tortured. They are only the latest protesters that, despite working hard and taking great personal risks, did not realize their aims. The widespread 2017 and 2018 demonstrations against Russian corruption and autocratic rule did not result in major reforms. Mass protests against Putin’s norm-breaking 2012 presidential campaign failed to stop his return to office. In fact, the last successful protest aimed at Russia’s federal government took place in 2005, when the elderly blocked the country’s most important highway to get their social benefits back.

Russian police officers detaining a protester in Moscow, September 2022

Reuters

Russia’s experience is, unfortunately, typical of autocratic countries. In Venezuela, years of demonstrations against President Nicolás Maduro yielded arrests and mass repression but no regime change. Iran’s 2022 antigovernment protests captured the hearts of people all over the world, yet public executions and thousands of arrests subdued the unrest. Next door to Russia, in Belarus, over 500,000 citizens—or at least one in every twenty people in the country—demonstrated against President Alexander Lukashenko's fraudulent 2020 reelection. Ultimately, the Belarussian state snuffed out the dissent with unremitting violence. Even in democracies, protests are often ineffective. Millions of people in the United States demonstrated against the war in Iraq, but their government went ahead and invaded anyway.

In some post-Soviet states, protest movements have had more success. In Ukraine, for example, the 2014 Maidan revolution successfully toppled the country’s corrupt president after he tried to stop Ukraine from deepening relations with the EU. But Kyiv, unlike Moscow, was not an authoritarian regime. The demonstrators did not expect mass arrests or killings in retaliation for their actions. When over 100 people were, in fact, killed by the police, the movement had already gained almost unstoppable momentum.

The protesters also had support from major political parties, elected officials, newspapers, and television channels. Dissenters in today’s Russia do not have any such backing. Putin, slowly but steadily, has either subdued or destroyed these institutions. His regime went about it in a clever way. There was no obvious turning point in Putin’s takeover, no moment when democracy was dealt an undisputed final blow. Instead, he just piled on a series of straws that eventually broke the country’s back.

IN THE WAY

Russia, however, is not hopeless. There are opposition groups, including mine, which are trying to convince the country that a more democratic and peaceful future is both better and possible—and we are far from hopeless. According to our team’s phone polls, more Russians (46 percent) want the state to prioritize social spending over military spending than the other way around (26 percent). Almost half—47 percent—empathize with people who try to dodge military service, as opposed to the 36 percent of people who condemn their behavior. It is difficult to estimate the number of Russians who actively support the war—defined as Russians who volunteer, donate to troops, or otherwise go out of their way to assist with the operation. But by our estimates, the number is below five percent. In fact, willingness to serve in the army is so low that the state offers up to $11,000 just for signing the contract with the military. Russians are not unrestrained warmongers. Most are willing to end Moscow’s assault on its neighbor.

Critics might argue that our conclusions are prejudiced because of the team’s political positions. But the professional pollsters do all due diligence and use rigorous methods to ensure that our data is valid. We are transparent about how we conduct surveys, publishing our questionnaires and anonymized datasets so that any social scientist can check and criticize our work—critiques that we, in turn, use to improve our methods. And for the most part, our findings do not contradict those of other researchers, be it Russia Watcher or the Levada Center. They just show that, for many Russians, support for the war is paper thin.

That there is discontent, of course, does not mean there will be active opposition: responding to a poll is different from taking action. To turn unhappiness into constructive action, activists must persuade disaffected Russians that the return is worth the risk and that doing nothing at all will land Russia in an even worse situation than it is in now. In order to do so, Russian opposition figures try to explain Russia’s real economic situation and what is happening with the war through analytic materials and through political entertainment shows broadcast on YouTube, which is not yet blocked in Russia. We are also actively trying to show what a peaceful democratic Russia might look like.

The United States and Europe have in some ways complicated our task, in part through restrictions that make it harder for us to function. Mitya Aleshkovsky, for instance, a Russian nonprofit and media manager well known for his antiwar and anti-Putin stance, encountered numerous problems with international banks and PayPal when he tried to create a nongovernmental organization aimed at supporting Russia’s antiwar initiatives. Latvia revoked the license for TV Rain, a liberal Russian television channel that Moscow had kicked out. (Latvian officials contended, falsely, that the station supported the invasion.)

Western rhetoric has encouraged ordinary Russians to stand by Putin.

Western societies have also made life needlessly difficult for ordinary Russians fleeing the regime. The vast majority of NATO states make it hard for Russians to get visas or residence permits. The EU states that border mainland Russia—Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland—have prevented most Russians with existing tourist visas from entering. These barriers are entirely self-defeating. Ostensibly designed to demonstrate the anti-Putin stance of Western politicians, the restrictions’ most important accomplishment is reinforcing Putin’s message that the West views all Russians as the enemy. They also prevent many able-bodied and smart young men—the people whom Putin needs to prosecute his conflict—from evading conscription.

The West does, of course, have an interest in preventing a certain class of Russians from enjoying life in its cities: Putin’s cronies. And Washington and Europe’s post-invasion crackdown on Russian oligarchs, years overdue, was welcomed in the Russian opposition community. But the West may ultimately need to go easier on these figures than it would like. After Putin himself, Russia’s elite are the country’s most powerful people, and the West’s tough stance means they have zero incentive to push for an end to the conflict. The Kremlin, of course, will punish them for dissent. But U.S. and European commentators have threatened to punish them, too, as part of a peace agreement. As a result, their safest course of action is to stand by the current regime and its ongoing invasion. “For all his failures,” the political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya wrote in Foreign Affairs in November 2022, Putin “remains their best bet for preserving the regime that keeps them safe.”

Western rhetoric has also encouraged ordinary Russians to stand by Putin. Although the population is not bought-in on the invasion, they do not want to see defeat in Ukraine destroy their country, and some U.S. and European groups have published articles declaring that Russia should be dismembered. For example, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe—an independent commission of the U.S. government, designed to promote human rights and peace on the continent (and elsewhere)—declared that "decolonizing Russia” should be a “moral and strategic objective.” Most U.S. and European elites may not agree with these calls, but they are quickly picked up by Russian news outlets and blasted to every household in the country. Propagandists then use them to argue that Putin is, indeed, fighting to save Russia.

It is therefore little wonder that millions of Russians have not taken to the streets. They know that the costs of public dissent are far too high, and the potential returns of democratization seem very low.

ANTI-PUTIN, ANTIWAR, PRO-RUSSIAN

For many Western observers, what concerns Russia’s 140 million people is unimportant. Moscow launched an imperialist invasion, and so Russian suffering may simply be the price of stopping the Kremlin. Some Westerners may even want to see Russians hurt. According to reporting by The Washington Post, anti-Russian sentiment in Europe is on the rise, and Russian immigrants throughout the continent have been harassed, irrespective of their political views. In the Czech Republic, for example, a Prague University professor declared that he would not teach Russian students, and store owners have put up signs saying they will not welcome Russian visitors.

But this type of thinking is counterproductive (and it undermines principles of universal human rights). Antagonizing ordinary Russians will not help persuade people to actively oppose the invasion or support democracy. It will do nothing to transform Russia into a safe, committed, and predictable partner.

And Russia will need to transform if the world wants a satisfactory ending to this conflict, or if it wants to be sure that Moscow will not start new ones. The war has reached a stalemate, and so Ukraine may not be able to retake all occupied territory unless Russia decides to pull back. Even if Kyiv does succeed in pushing Russia out of Ukrainian land, the Kremlin is unlikely to call it quits. Given Putin’s past behavior, Moscow would likely continue ordering attacks from across the border or try to interfere in the elections in the US or EU.

Walking past an electronic screen showing an image of Putin, Moscow, December 2023

Maxim Shemetov / Reuters

U.S. and European leaders would therefore do well to take a new approach. They could start by pledging explicitly, loudly, and repeatedly that they will not try breaking apart Russia in the event Moscow cedes or loses the war. They could continue by not rejecting ordinary Russians trying to come into their countries, both because those Russians are fleeing from participation in the war and because they are usually well educated and could greatly contribute to Western economies. The United States and Europe should also make it clear that the entire Russian elite would not be penalized if Russia stops or loses the war and transforms. Only those confirmed to have actively taken part in war crimes would face punishment.

To help win over elites, Western governments could suggest conditions under which officials without a track record of war crimes would be spared from personal sanctions when the war ends. If such officials defect, Western states could even lift sanctions on them before the war finishes. Relatedly, the United States and Europe may want to offer amnesty to Russians who have participated in minor regime crimes in exchange for a willingness to oppose Putin and make Russia return to a path of peace and cooperation. The West should bear in mind that most current high-level Russian officials have participated in corruption, electoral fraud, and other authoritarian offenses. If they are afraid of facing retribution for these sins, they are likely to stick with Putin and do their best to thwart democratization.

There are, of course, war criminals who need to be held accountable; my colleagues and I are not calling for amnesty all around. Nor are we calling for an end to all, or even most, of the sanctions right now. But the West could be more judicious in how it applies certain restrictions, and it should lay out conditions for ending them. Ordinary Russians need to know that, if their country withdraws from Ukraine, the West will lift sanctions and allow the Russian economy to grow, making it easier for them to earn a living.

Thankfully, some Western officials have made it publicly known they are willing to help the Russian people if the invasion comes to an end. In a June address in Helsinki, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that the United States “is not [the Russian people's] enemy.” At the end of the Cold War, he said, “we shared the hope that Russia would emerge to a brighter future, free and open, fully integrated with the world. For more than 30 years, we worked to pursue stable and cooperative relations with Moscow, because we believed that a peaceful, secure, and prosperous Russia is in America’s interests—indeed, in the interests of the world. We still believe that today.”

The West can help Russians stop fearing democratization and an end to the war in Ukraine.

To help activists create that peaceful, secure, and prosperous Russia, the West can do more than make encouraging statements. Western officials should offer specific promises and, when possible, act now to support Russians trying to flee the regime. They should offer ways out to accomplices of Putin who are willing to atone. Putin's propaganda machine will try to hide Western overtures, but a coordinated anti-Putin, antiwar, pro-Russian policy will inevitably seep through. It should reach establishment figures quickly, given that they are both less influenced by propaganda and have easier access to outside information.

Taking these measures, of course, will not by itself change Russia. Foreign states ultimately have little power over my country’s domestic politics. At the end of the day, only Russians can bring democracy and peace to Russia. But these measures would remove some of the roadblocks that make the job of Russian activists—including mine—harder than is needed. It can help us show other Russians that our country can have a future free of isolation, one where they will have more opportunities to prosper than they do right now. It can help us persuade Russians that, if Moscow abandons its aggression, their children will not have to go to the frontline to earn $2,000 per month. The West can, in other words, help Russians stop fearing democratization and an end to the war in Ukraine.

This, in turn, will increase the chances that Russia starts addressing the evils it has inflicted. Ukraine would then hopefully get peace and reparations. Russians would get a better life. And the United States and Europe would get a predictable and constructive partner instead of a hostile dictatorship.

• ALEKSEI MINIAILO is a Moscow-based Russian opposition activist and Co-Founder of Chronicles research project.

Foreign Affairs · by Aleksei Miniailo · December 28, 2023

18. Russia warns Japan over providing Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine

Russia warns Japan over providing Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-warns-japan-over-providing-patriot-air-defence-systems-ukraine-2023-12-27/

Reuters

December 27, 20235:44 AM ESTUpdated a day ago

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova speaks during a news conference in Moscow, Russia, April 4, 2023. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov/File Photo Acquire Licensing Rights

MOSCOW, Dec 27 (Reuters) - A move by Japan to provide Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine will have "grave consequences" for Russia-Japan ties, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Wednesday.

Relations between Moscow and Tokyo, already difficult, have deteriorated sharply since Russia sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in Feb. 2022. Japan has joined its Western allies in imposing sweeping economic sanctions on Russia.

Last week, Japan said it would prepare to ship Patriot air defence missiles to the United States after revising its arms export guidelines, in Tokyo's first major overhaul of such export curbs in nine years.

Although Japan's new export controls still prevent it from shipping weapons to countries that are at war, it may indirectly benefit Ukraine in its war with Russia as it gives the United States extra capacity to provide military aid to Kyiv.

"The Japanese side loses control over the weapons with which Washington can now do whatever it wants," Zakharova told a weekly briefing. "It cannot be ruled out that under an already tested scheme Patriot missiles will end up in Ukraine."

Such a scenario would be "interpreted as unambigously hostile actions against Russia and will lead to grave consequences for Japan in the context of bilateral relations", she said.

Earlier this month, Japan and South Korea both scrambled jets to monitor joint flights by Chinese and Russian bombers and fighters near their territories.

Russia and Japan have yet to conclude a treaty formally ending World War Two hostilities due to an old territorial dispute involving a chain of Pacific islands known in Japan as the Northern Territories and in Russia as the Southern Kuriles.

Even before the Ukraine conflict, Tokyo had complained about increased Russian military deployments on the islands, which the Soviet Union seized from Japan at the end of World War Two.

Reporting by Dmitry Antonov Writing by Olzhas Auyezov Editing by Gareth Jones

19. Shortly Before Hamas Attacked, a Warning Arrived. What Happened at This Crucial Outpost?

Quite a story. Questions need to be answered.

Shortly Before Hamas Attacked, a Warning Arrived. What Happened at This Crucial Outpost?

R. was on his way to check suspicions of an infiltration when he was forbidden to approach the fence. Two hours later, the Hamas assault began ■ A handful of soldiers blocked dozens of terrorists who were trying to capture a military outpost near Kibbutz Nahal Oz. Twelve soldiers were killed, and their parents want answers

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-27/ty-article-magazine/.premium/shortly-before-the-hamas-attack-this-warning-arrived-what-happened-at-the-paga-outpost/0000018c-a631-dc33-a78c-bfb9f5360000?utm_source=mailchimp

Bar PelegYaniv Kubovich

Dec 27, 2023 5:00 pm IST

A few hours after Hamas' October 7 attack began, while trying to take cover from gunfire, an Israeli soldier from the Golani Brigade sent a voice message to his friends: "Send this to whoever you can. We're here alone. I've seen many Hamas terrorists. We don't know if we can survive; we don't have much time left."

Four minutes later, his friends received another message." A sniper just hit my helmet. We're a second away from dying. It's a miracle I'm not already dead." The soldier, one of the few manning the "Paga" (Magen Be'eri) military outpost near the Gaza border, made it clear to his friends. "They've captured the Paga outpost. We're going to die here."

- Advertisement -

Despite the soldier's pleas, hours passed before reinforcements arrived. He survived the attack, but for 12 of his comrades, help came too late –They fell battling the dozens of Hamas terrorists who had infiltrated the post.

Open gallery view

In an attempt to understand what happened to their sons in their last hours, some of the soldiers' parents are seeking answers from the Israeli army. No one will give them any, and no one has provided updates.

Israel At War: Get a daily summary direct to your inbox

Email *

Please enter a valid email address

Sign Up

Open gallery view

The bullets-riddled entrance to the dining room at the Paga outpost.

On the night before the attack, platoon Sgt. R. exited the Paga outpost, located close to Kibbutz Nahal Oz, to patrol along the border with Gaza. The patrol began at 2 A.M. and was supposed to last 12 hours. The main challenge R. expected while on patrol was demonstrations by Gazans, as had occurred in the weeks preceding October 7. Before 5 A.M., a warning was received from one of the observation posts, indicating a significant interference with the border fence. The patrol was then supposed to go that spot and ascertain whether an infiltration had occurred.

• The first hours of the Israel-Hamas War: What actually happened?
• Israel's dead: The names of those killed in Hamas massacres and the Israel-Hamas war
• The IDF observation balloon operators that fought and fell to save Nahal Oz

According to R., his commander forbade him from moving toward the border fence. "I didn't delve into the matter and continued with the patrol," he recalled. The worry was that Israeli forces might be vulnerable to an anti-tank missile if they approached the fence. R. was then prohibited from traveling along the fence before 9 A.M., which was later changed to 7 A.M.

- Advertisement -

R. continued on his patrol. No one checked what had touched the fence. No one updated the soldiers at the outpost. No one updated friends of theirs either. They were on routine alert a few hundred meters from the border fence together with an armored force and a Namer armored personnel carrier.

A video shot by Hamas terrorists of the fight at the Paga outpost.

R. returned to the outpost at 6 A.M. Like everywhere else across the country, rocket sirens began sounding at 6:30 A.M. The 30 soldiers who were in the small outpost moved into a safe room in the kibbutz dining hall. Some of them had just woken up and were without their gear. 15 minutes later, R. said, "we received eight warnings indicating infiltration in our sector, with rockets and missiles falling around the outpost."

The first wave

While soldiers were besieged in the dining hall, dozens of terrorists entered the outpost. R. and platoon commander Dekel Suisa, who was acting outpost commander that morning, emerged from the shelter with six other soldiers to fight them. They quickly realized that they were significantly outnumbered. They were hoping reinforcements would arrive, not yet realizing they were on their own. R. said ammunition ran out quickly and that he had to count every bullet he fired. "I went into kneeling position, identified a terrorist, fired three bullets and he fell," he recalled.

Open gallery view

The protected area in the Paga outpost dining area, after Hamas' attack.

He and other soldiers kept waiting for help. "We expected someone to show up; we didn't yet know that the whole sector was under attack and that communications were down," he explained. All the soldiers who spoke with Haaretz said that at the time they were certain terrorists had invaded only their outpost. R. couldn't understand what was happening elsewhere. He said he spoke by phone with the company commander, who told him that reinforcements were on the way.

- Advertisement -

Reinforcements arrived at around 8 A.M., when a Namer vehicle entered the outpost carrying the few soldiers who had been on alert a few hundred meters away. One of them said that they realized the fighting inside the outpost was more intense after Suisa reported that one soldier was dead. "We took the Namer and drove there, shooting and running over terrorists the whole way," says the soldier.

When they reached the outpost, they tried to provide cover for the soldiers engaged with the terrorists to enable them to enter some other armored vehicles that were there. "There was shooting from all directions," said one soldiers who arrived. "We tried to draw the fire toward ourselves and clear some of the sector for the others." During that battle, Suisa and a soldier named Itamar Cohen were killed.

Open gallery view

The attempt to draw the terrorists' fire away from the soldiers failed. One soldier said he thinks the terrorists knew what the soldiers were planning and waited for them in the armored vehicle parking area. The gunmen managed to hit the manned Namer when they detonated an explosive device on its ramp, disabling the back door from opening and trapping the soldiers inside. They also disabled the vehicle's machine gun. Though the soldiers' plan failed, the terrorists were repelled, at least temporarily.

Breaking news and the best of Haaretz straight to your inbox

Email *

Please enter a valid email address

Sign Up

The second wave

At 8:30 A.M., the second wave of the invasion began. The soldiers used the short pause to get organized, but the terrorists returned to the outpost, firing shoulder-launched missiles and grenades. The battle lasted for hours, during which Hamas gunmen attacked an adjacent installation, breaking into it and pillaging it. The Namer armored vehicle followed them.

At 12:15 P.M., R., who hails from a Druze family, tried to contact soldiers in the outpost who he had talked to before. No one answered. Meanwhile, the shootout continued. "I looked into the terrorist's eyes and he started shooting at me," recalled R. He then heard a terrorist directing others toward him and the soldiers. "I realized that if I didn't leave that location, we'd be hit with grenades and bombs. So I devised an escape plan, updating the others before leading the force," he said. On his way out of the outpost, he killed another gunman. "A few days later, I saw a video of the terrorists shooting a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) at the spot we'd been in."

Open gallery view

R. at the Paga outpost, on October 6.

Meanwhile, the soldiers in the Namer didn't know what to do. Their ammunition was running out and the condition of the wounded was worsening as the threat to their friends at the outpost increased. "If we didn't evacuate the wounded, they would have died," said one of the soldiers who had been in the Namer. "On the other hand, there were the soldiers in the outpost, you see that they're surrounded, that you don't have much ammunition or communications."

When they were sure that all the soldiers in the outpost were dead, R. and his soldiers joined the men in the Namer. There were 17 soldiers inside, some of them wounded. They drove to the adjacent Sa'ad Junction, joining the rest of their battalion which was fighting in Nahal Oz. An hour later, significant reinforcements arrived for the first time. An anti-terror unit broke into the outpost and took control. One of the fighters said they were dozens of terrorist bodies there, killed by Golani soldiers.

The mess hall

On the morning of October 7, Eti Raz managed to message with her son Idan, who was stationed at the outpost. "What's happening? We understand it's a mess down south," she texted him at 8:30 A.M. "Mom, everything's OK," he responded, adding an emoji of a big heart and flowers. "He'd always send me a little heart. He wasn't emotional," said his mother. An hour later, Idan Raz sent his girlfriend a message telling her he was well. At 10 A.M. he wrote to his friends, "You don't understand what's happening here. We're at war." Raz was besieged in the dining hall with most of the soldiers in the outpost after dozens of Hamas terrorists had broken in. They fired at the reinforced building and tried to set fire to it.

Inside, soldiers piled up furniture in an attempt to block the doors. While worrying that the terrorists might infiltrate the building they encountered a further danger: Thick smoke coming from the fire lighted by the terrorists. Those who survived the attack said that some soldiers fainted, while others vomited blood; they were sure they would not come out alive. One soldier sent his parents a video, his face covered in soot, his eyes bulging. "Mom and Dad, I love you. I don't know what will happen," he told them.

Open gallery view

R. in Shfar'am, two weeks ago.Credit: Rami Shlush

Shalev Baranes was with Raz in the dining hall. His mother, Eva, woke up at home at 7:30 A.M. from the noise of jets taking off at the nearby airbase. "I told my husband to wake up. A plane on Shabbat is not a good sign," she said.

Her husband messaged their son asking what was going on. "Everything's okay," he replied. Eva later said, "He wrote me, and I now know this, 'Listen to the bastards.' Abba Golanchik, there is nothing to do." She texted her son herself at 8:20 A.M. He calmed her down, writing that he was okay. "I turned on the TV, took a sedative, and asked him to tell me the truth.

"He wrote me, 'I'll call soon. Everything's okay'," she said. "He never called." Raz, Baranes, and two soldiers, Itay Glisko and Yakir Levi, decided not to wait. They left the protected space in an attempt to drive away the terrorists and allow the others to escape. Soldiers who spoke with them before they left the hall said that the four told them that were not ready to die hiding, and that if they were doomed, it would be better to die fighting. They fought the terrorists until they were killed.

By the afternoon, Baranes' mother Eva was already convinced that her son had been killed. "I ran to my husband and told him, 'My boy is gone, my boy is gone'" she said. "I sat in the playground opposite the house and simply waited all night for the casualty officers. Don't knock on my door. I already know."

Open gallery view

Idan Raz's family at his grave in Kibbutz Ein HaMifratz, two weeks ago.Credit: Rami Shlush

Question marks

Since the loss of the soldiers, their families have been trying to understand what happened at the small outpost. How could scores of terrorists enter it, despite a warning at the fence at 4 A.M., and why did no reinforcements arrive? Eti Raz tried to personally investigate in order to obtain some answers. She spoke with soldiers who were there and with those who arrived at the site after the battle. "We began knowing nothing at all. We heard that everyone at the outpost had been killed. Later, two soldiers came and began talking," she said.

Nonetheless, she said she doesn't really know what happened there. In the weeks preceding the attack, the parents discovered in their inquiry, soldiers were busy dealing with demonstrations by Gazans along the fence, including throwing explosives and men carrying weapons.

Open gallery view

Eva Baranes, Shalev Baranes' mother, sits next to a photo of her late son at Kfar Baruch, two weeks ago. 'I told my husband to wake up. A plane on Shabbat is not a good sign,' she said.Credit: Gil Eliyahu

A month before Hamas' attack, while protests at the Gaza border fence were happeniong, Baranes messaged a friend: "There was real confusion at the fence. A fragmentation grenade was thrown at the position, they fired at it, an air force aircraft arrived and fired. You don't understand what's going on there." Baranes sent similar texts to his father. Eva said "I'd wait for my husband to go to sleep, take the phone, go to messages and check on Google what DC (disorderly conduct) means. I saw that he wrote, 'Dad, the rioting is bad, they're exhausting us. My eyes are burning. We're at the fence for nine hours, twelve hours and we're doing nothing. We're not given permission to fire. Why?'"

Eva said the soldiers had been sounding the alarm for six weeks, "and that finally, on Simchat Torah, their readiness was at zero. Everyone was home." About her son, Eva said, "23 soldiers left the dining hall alive. My son did not. He could have waited to be rescued, but he chose to go out and fight, because he knew there were no reinforcements. He said, 'That's not how I will end my life. A terrorist won't burn me to death.'"

In an attempt to elucidate his last hours, members of the Baranes family went to the outpost. The Raz family also visited the site. "We found his dog tags at one spot, so we realized exactly where he had been standing," said Eti Raz, who filmed the burned rooms and signs of the gunfire. To date, she has not received a response from the army. "And if the war ends in six months?" she asked, "How am I supposed to feel? What am I supposed to do until then?"

So far, what Eti has been able to glean about what happened at the outpost has given her some comfort. "Today I know that my son is a hero," she said. "He did not fight in his underwear, they didn't pull him out of bed. At first, we really thought that that had been his fate."

Open gallery view

A sticker with the logo of Hapoel Tel Aviv, dedicated to Idan Raz,Credit: Bar Peleg

During the visit, the Raz family waved a Golani flag and a Hapoel Tel Aviv pendant – Ido had been a fan of the club. The family, and others, are upset that renovations of the outpost have begun, as if no battle had been fought there. "[This] is a battle that will be talked about," Eti said with confidence. "The outpost was not captured. The soldiers were not abducted and a small force was able to fight off dozens of terrorists."

The IDF Spokesperson's Unit responded, saying "The IDF is currently fighting the murderous Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip. When the fighting ends, the IDF will conduct a detailed and thorough investigation of the matter to clarify things. The information will be presented to the families and afterwards will be made public.

"Golani Brigade commanders gave initial information about the event to all the bereaved families, and as we obtain further information, it will be given to the families. The bereaved families visited the outpost where their loved ones fell on an organized tour arranged by the brigade, and held a memorial service at the site. The IDF shares in the pain of the bereaved families and will continue to support them."

20. China struggles to repurpose the lessons of the Pearl Harbor attack

Is the US defense industrial base up to the task? We forget that the fundamental modern American way of war is not to simply our fight our enemy but to outproduce them. Do we still have that ability?

Excerpt:

The US economy was over five times the size of Japan’s economy during the Pacific War. US industrial capacity was unparalleled. America produced 300,000 military aircraft, compared with 65,000 for Japan. The United States built more ships in 1941 alone than Japan built during the entire war. After the Battle of Midway in 1942, in which the Japanese lost four large aircraft carriers, Japan built only six more, while the USA built 17, plus over a hundred escort carriers.

The Americans prevailed over Japan not because of superior skills or equipment, but because Japan could not keep up with US war production.

In a US-China war today, however, it is China that would enjoy superiority in manufacturing capacity.

War gaming suggests the US would run out of long-range precision-guided munitions during a war against China. Moreover, because of shortages of skilled workers and key components, it would take at least two years to significantly increase production rates. China may be deploying advanced weapons up to five or six times faster than America can.

Playing up its advantages relative to 1941 Japan would serve Chinese attempts to deter Washington from assisting Taiwan. Instead, however, China may be losing the contest to define the lessons of the Pearl Harbor attack. The PRC government is failing to drive a wedge between the United States and Japan. Nor is China persuading Americans that Chinese foreign policy is strictly defensive.

A fair reading of history continues to suggest that the American fear of a figurative second Pearl Harbor attack, with China taking over the role of Japan in the sequel, is justified.

China struggles to repurpose the lessons of the Pearl Harbor attack

Failing to drive wedge between US and Japan, Beijing hasn’t persuaded Americans PRC policy’s strictly defensive

asiatimes.com · by Denny Roy · December 27, 2023

A few days ago Pearl Harbor, on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, commemorated the 82nd anniversary of the Japanese attack in a ceremony attended by several hundred, including centenarian survivors.

Not only did the bombing of the harbor by Japanese aircraft in what was then a US territory pull the United States into World War II as a full combatant. It also permanently influenced US grand strategy.

At a deep strategic level, the lesson US planners drew from the Pearl Harbor attack is that American security is not ensured by the favorable geographic circumstances of large oceans to the east and west and weak neighbors to the north and south.

This assessment has been a pillar of postwar US internationalism, in which Washington maintains alliances and military bases abroad to shape the affairs of other regions toward convergence with US interests, and especially to prevent the rise of a regional military threat that could again reach across one of the great oceans to strike US territory.

More colloquially, Americans equate the Pearl Harbor attack with an unexpected disaster – such as the September 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s use of social media to interfere with the 2016 US elections or the attempt of Trump supporters to disrupt certification of the 2020 election.

Many analysts are now adapting the Pearl Harbor scenario to China. The argument they make is that China would launch a surprise attack to try to neutralize US bases in the Asia-Pacific, particularly those on Guam and Okinawa, at the beginning of a campaign to conquer Taiwan, with the goal of weakening or eliminating the US ability to intervene in Taiwan’s defense.

“China would use the same strategy as Japan to try to achieve a quick and dirty victory,” warns Harry J. Kazianis, senior director for national security affairs at the Center for the National Interest. Kazianis visualizes “a massive `bolt-from-the-blue attack’ that could, in not even a day, wipe out most of our military assets in the Indo-Pacific region.”

PRC propagandists are fighting back by asserting their own, very different, interpretations of the Pearl Harbor attack. One take is that the United States is doing a Pearl Harbor to China.

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

Chinese commentary on US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022 included a PRC foreign affairs scholar saying that, to Chinese people, Pelosi’s trip was what the “Pearl Harbor attack was to Americans during World War II.”

A second way the PRC deploys this historical event is as evidence to support Beijing’s narrative on US-Japan relations. The Chinese argue that Americans should view Japan as an enemy (as China does) and that Washington is foolish to support Japan’s remilitarization.

According to a China Daily editorial, Washington’s misguided policy toward Japan in the 1940s led to the Pearl Harbor attack and Americans are wrong again today in thinking “a re-militarized Japan can act as a guard dog at the door of the Indo-Pacific” – failing to realize that “their imagined guard dog” is actually “a wolf that does not heed the voice of its master.”

Finally, PRC government-affiliated commentators decry as an intentional insult the idea of China possibly launching a Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack. This is a “smear campaign against China,” asserts an unsigned Global Times editorial. “The US military is conducting an act of aggression, and we are justified in self-defense. This is the exact opposite of the nature of the attack on Pearl Harbor.”

“Comparing China to Japan in the Second World War,” says PRC Ambassador to the US Xie Feng, is tantamount to “demonizing China.” Xie says the fact the comparison is being made confirms that “a whole-of-government and whole-of-society campaign is being waged to bring China down.”

The way China invokes the Pearl Harbor attack reflects PRC interests in upholding Beijing’s honor, opposing a militarily strong Japan and imploring the United States to stop supporting the Taipei government.

On the other hand, the main concern of US analysts linking China to Pearl Harbor is to shock Americans into understanding the danger that China might initiate hostilities against the USA.

Rather than an attempt to smear or demonize China, this warning stems from Beijing’s standing threat to use military force to annex Taiwan if Taiwan’s people choose not to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government.

Whether Beijing likes it or not, China is the aggressor in this scenario. Claiming that its ownership of the island of Taiwan justifies warring against the people who live on Taiwan is even less inspiring than fascist Japan’s claim that it was invading Southeast Asia to liberate the region from Western colonialism.

If the PRC opts to invade Taiwan, it is reasonable to expect the plan will include knocking out nearby US forces. Striking first would give China early momentum. In this sense the comparison to the Pearl Harbor attack is apt. Japan tried to destroy the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor so the Americans could not interfere with Japanese plans to seize Southeast Asia.

The Chinese would do better to emphasize two other lessons from the US-Japan conflict in the Pacific War that are highly relevant to a hypothetical US-China war.

The Japanese government hoped that a decisive opening blow would persuade Washington to sue for peace and acquiesce to Japan controlling the Asia-Pacific region. Instead, however, the United States committed itself to fighting and winning a total war against Japan, with the ultimate goal of replacing the Japanese government and political system.

Pearl Harbor attack: the sleeping giant awakened. Photo: Warfare History Network

That US commitment to fight despite the expected high cost in blood and treasure was crucially important to the Pacific War’s outcome.

Commitment would also matter in a US-China war over Taiwan. The PRC’s threat that it would “pay any price” to unify with Taiwan is credible because the CCP has tied the achievement of this objective to the party’s legitimacy to rule China. For the USA, however, defending Taiwan is optional and the cost is potentially exorbitant. Advantage: China.

Also crucially important to the outcome of the Pacific War was industrial might.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

The US economy was over five times the size of Japan’s economy during the Pacific War. US industrial capacity was unparalleled. America produced 300,000 military aircraft, compared with 65,000 for Japan. The United States built more ships in 1941 alone than Japan built during the entire war. After the Battle of Midway in 1942, in which the Japanese lost four large aircraft carriers, Japan built only six more, while the USA built 17, plus over a hundred escort carriers.

The Americans prevailed over Japan not because of superior skills or equipment, but because Japan could not keep up with US war production.

In a US-China war today, however, it is China that would enjoy superiority in manufacturing capacity.

War gaming suggests the US would run out of long-range precision-guided munitions during a war against China. Moreover, because of shortages of skilled workers and key components, it would take at least two years to significantly increase production rates. China may be deploying advanced weapons up to five or six times faster than America can.

Playing up its advantages relative to 1941 Japan would serve Chinese attempts to deter Washington from assisting Taiwan. Instead, however, China may be losing the contest to define the lessons of the Pearl Harbor attack. The PRC government is failing to drive a wedge between the United States and Japan. Nor is China persuading Americans that Chinese foreign policy is strictly defensive.

A fair reading of history continues to suggest that the American fear of a figurative second Pearl Harbor attack, with China taking over the role of Japan in the sequel, is justified.

Denny Roy is a senior fellow in politics and international relations at the East-West Center in Honolulu.

asiatimes.com · by Denny Roy · December 27, 2023

21. Statement of Support for Former C4ADS Analyst Nicole Morgret (On China Sanctions)

Statement of Support for Former C4ADS Analyst Nicole Morgret

c4ads.org · by Nick Shereikis · December 27, 2023

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — On December 26, 2023, the Chinese government sanctioned former C4ADS analyst Nicole Morgret for her work exposing the corporate, financial, and trade networks behind Uyghur genocide in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China (XUAR). We are extremely proud of this work, and we remain committed to combating the illicit networks that perpetrate and facilitate human rights violations around the world, including in the Uyghur region.

The Chinese government is executing a campaign of human rights violations against Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples, including mass detention, religious persecution, intrusive surveillance, and forced labor. In response, C4ADS has analyzed, monitored, and reported on these crimes and the companies and systems behind them.

We began this work in August 2021 with Long Shadows, our investigation into the sanctions evasion techniques that companies perpetrating forced labor and human rights abuses in XUAR use to remain enmeshed in global finance and trade. We followed that up with How Congress Can Act Against Uyghur Forced Labor, released just months before we officially launched our Human Security program.

C4ADS then harnessed that momentum to continue our work on Uyghur rights into 2022 with Everybody’s Business, an issue brief that mapped the contours of the Xinjiang agricultural and industrial sectors and identified nine goods that are produced in disproportionately high volumes in the Uyghur region. We shared our Shifting Gears report that same year, which exposed the system of industrial transfer in XUAR that supports forced labor and masks forced labor products as they enter global supply chains.

Most recently, we published Fractured Veins, in which we reveal how minerals from XUAR that are associated with forced labor and human rights abuse may be reaching global networks of finance and trade — including hundreds of Western companies and the index fund portfolios of several major asset management firms.

As the Chinese government continues to censor and intimidate open and free reporting on human rights and other critical issues, C4ADS stands with Nicole and by our work holding the CCP accountable for their actions. We remain steadfast in our commitment to defeating the illicit and malign networks around the world that threaten global peace and security.

For additional information about our work supporting Uyghur rights in XUAR and abroad, please visit the “Human Security” or “China” initiative pages on our website or contact us at [email protected].

c4ads.org · by Nick Shereikis · December 27, 2023

22. Fact Sheet: Department of Defense Concludes 'Decisive Year' in the Indo-Pacific Region

​Graphics at the link: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3626886/fact-sheet-department-of-defense-concludes-decisive-year-in-the-indo-pacific-re/

​May be useful in some Asia Pacific security briefings.

Fact Sheet: Department of Defense Concludes 'Decisive Year' in the Indo-Pacific Region

defense.gov

An official website of the United States Government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov

Immediate Release

Dec. 27, 2023 |×

Share

Throughout 2023, the United States has worked alongside allies and partners to deliver groundbreaking achievements for peace, stability, and deterrence in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. As Secretary Austin has said, “In this decisive decade, 2023 will be remembered as a decisive year for implementing U.S. defense strategy in Asia.”

Transforming U.S. Regional Force Posture

In 2023, the United States delivered historic achievements with allies and partners to make U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific region more mobile, distributed, resilient, and lethal, including by:

• Forward stationing key U.S. military units to Japan, including a U.S. Marine Littoral Regiment – the Marine Corps' most advanced formation – and a U.S. Army watercraft unit to significantly enhance combat-credible deterrence.
• Launching a series of new force postures initiatives with Australia, including more and longer expeditionary visits of U.S. submarines resulting from AUKUS, increased rotations of U.S. bombers and fighters, expanded maritime and ground forces cooperation, enhanced space and logistics cooperation, continuing upgrades of key bases, and movement toward the creation of Submarine Rotational Force-West in Australia by 2027.
• Expanding U.S. rotational access across the Philippines by designating four new Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) sites at strategic locations, which will strengthen the interoperability of U.S. and Philippine armed forces and allow both countries to address shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.
• Concluding a Defense Cooperation Agreement with Papua New Guinea (PNG) that builds on decades of bilateral defense and security cooperation, strengthens the U.S.-PNG relationship, and increases regional stability and security.
• Bolstering deterrence and increasing strategic asset rotations to the Korean Peninsula, including the first port call of a U.S. SSBN to the Republic of Korea (ROK) in over 40 years and the first landing of a U.S. nuclear-capable B-52 on the Peninsula since 1988.

2023 By The Numbers

Graphic showing numbers related to achievements in the Indo-Pacific.

Share:

×

Share

Download: Full Size (522.24 KB)

Photo By: DOD

VIRIN: 231227-D-D0439-001

Making Historic Investments in Capability

The United States is deploying cutting-edge military capabilities right now, developing the capabilities needed to maintain deterrence in the Indo-Pacific in the future, and supporting allies and partners as they invest in their own capabilities by:

• Releasing the most strategy-driven defense budget in the Department's history, including $170 billion for procurement to advance air, sea, and land power; $145 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation; and $9.1 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative – more than ever proposed for these key lines of effort.
• Announcing the Optimal Pathway for Australia to acquire conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine capabilities through AUKUS.
• Supporting Japan’s decision to acquire new capabilities that strengthen regional deterrence, including indigenous and acquired counterstrike capabilities like the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, as well as Tokyo’s decision to double its defense budget over the next five years and develop its research, testing, and industrial expertise to promote regional peace and stability.
• Advancing defense industrial base cooperation with Australia, including by agreeing to develop the ability to co-produce Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) by 2025, announcing an AUKUS Innovation Challenge focused on electronic warfare, and launching a new Maritime Autonomy Experimentation and Exercise Series through AUKUS.
• Bolstering India's defense modernization plans, including by advancing the priorities outlined in the Roadmap for U.S.-India Defense Industrial Cooperation to co-produce fighter jet engines and Stryker armored vehicles, as well as launching the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) to promote partnerships between U.S. and Indian researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors.​

Advancing a Shared Regional Vision

The United States is joining together with Indo-Pacific allies and partners in ways that strengthen peace and security across the region, including by operating together like never before. Key examples include:

• Japan and the ROK, cooperating more deeply than ever following this year’s historic Camp David Summit. In December, the three countries delivered on two key objectives from the summit – a multi-year, trilateral exercise plan and the full activation a real-time DPRK missile warning data-sharing mechanism.
• Australia and Japan, strengthening cooperation through participating in bilateral and trilateral exercises, and integrating Japan into existing U.S.-Australia force posture initiatives.
• India, modernizing the scope our military engagements including by incorporating advanced fighter aircraft and strategic bombers in our exercises, which strengthens interoperability and highlights shared efforts to promote stability and security in the Indo-Pacific.
• The Philippines, issuing the alliance’s first-ever Bilateral Defense Guidelines to chart a vision for defense cooperation across all domains.
• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), including through capacity-building programs and training courses to support the incorporation of Women, Peace, and Security principles into regional security planning and operations, as well as an emerging leaders fellowship program for young civilian and defense leaders in the Indo-Pacific.
• Investing over $1.2 billion in security cooperation initiatives across the Indo-Pacific region, including one of the largest U.S. investments in history to bolster Indo-Pacific partners’ capability and capacity, maritime domain awareness, and resilience against coercion.
• Exercise BALIKATAN with the Philippines, which featured more than 17,600 service members from the Philippines, Australia, and the United States, and – for the first time ever – featured littoral live fire and cyber defense elements to support deeper interoperability.
• Exercise COPE THUNDER with the Philippines, which returned to the Philippines for the first time after more than thirty years, featuring participation by fifth-generation fighter jets.
• Exercise SUPER GARUDA SHIELD with Indonesia and over ten nations represented, which featured more than 4,000 service members participating in amphibious and airborne operations training, command and control simulation, academic exchanges, and professional development exercises.
• Exercise MALABAR with India, Japan, and Australia, hosted in Australia for the first time this year, which facilitated high-end training in anti-submarine exercises, communications, and air defense.
• Exercise PACIFIC VANGUARD with the ROK, Japan, and Australia, which strengthened interoperability at sea by bringing together over 2,000 naval forces from the United States and three of its closest allies.

Indo-Pacific Indo-Pacific Command partnerships Australia Japan South Korea India Indonesia Phillipines aukus United Kingdom

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

defense.gov

23. Alliances Are Back at the Center of Power

As if we need a reminder! :-) 

Alliances Are Back at the Center of Power

States are increasingly focused on security and the age-old diplomatic instruments to achieve it.

By Stefan Theil, a deputy editor at Foreign Policy.

Foreign Policy · by Stefan Theil · December 27, 2023

December 27, 2023, 6:00 AM

2023

The year's best stories

When future students of international relations look at our era’s power shifts, they will note the reemergence of great-power conflict, the return of large-scale war to Europe, and the rise of new powers in the developing world.

But they will also notice the many shifts as countries rearrange their relations with each other in an increasingly unstable world. After two decades of relative peace and economic globalization, there is a renewed focus on security and the age-old instruments of diplomacy that states use to achieve it: alliances and other arrangements with like-minded powers.

Old alliances are being revitalized and expanded—just look at NATO. New axes are emerging, such as Russia and China’s ever closer embrace. And in an act of rebalancing worthy of an international relations textbook, various bilateral and multilateral security pacts are solidifying in the Indo-Pacific to address Beijing’s growing military might. These include the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as the two-year-old Australia-United Kingdom-United States pact, known as AUKUS.

The increasing role of alliances and other power blocs in the global system is also a testament to the failure of big multilateral institutions to live up to expectations. Superpower competition and other disputes within its bodies have made the United Nations increasingly ineffective, while other, more inclusive organizations, such as the G-77, have struggled to find a common denominator among competing interests and disparate ideologies. Instead, as Foreign Policy noted on the cover of the Fall 2023 issue of our magazine, “powerful blocs are getting things done.”

Here are five of our most noteworthy articles on alliances and power blocs from 2023.

By FP Contributors, July 6

Which Russia scenarios should NATO prepare for? Should Ukraine become a member? Can the bloc survive the possible return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency after the 2024 election? Foreign Policy asked nine experts to outline the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

By Bonny Lin, Sept. 11

Russia’s war in Ukraine has tightened Beijing and Moscow’s embrace, but there are many other reasons why this still-informal alliance is taking shape. Continued convergence of the two revisionist powers against the U.S.-led West is the most likely course, Bonny Lin writes.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with fellow BRICS leaders Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pose for a family photo, along with delegates from six nations invited to join the alliance at the BRICS summit in Johannesburg. they stand on a stage and wave and smile.

BRICS leaders and representatives, including delegates from the six nations invited to join the alliance, pose for a family photo at the BRICS summit in Johannesburg on Aug. 24. Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images

By C. Raja Mohan, Aug. 29

In August, the BRICS forum—initially comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—invited six new members to their club, igniting a frenzy of speculation that the group would turn into a powerful anti-Western bloc. C. Raja Mohan explains why this view is outlandish, as is the notion that China and Russia have used BRICS to make significant gains among the countries of the global south.

By Michael J. Green, Sept. 6

There are good reasons why past attempts to form NATO-like security alliances in Asia failed. With China’s rise as a revisionist military power, however, the logic of greater collective security in the region is becoming increasingly compelling, Michael J. Green writes.

By C. Raja Mohan, Sept. 11

As an alternative to constricting alliances and ineffective multilateralism, small groups of countries are increasingly cooperating on specific issues and shared interests—often voluntarily, and rarely as a formal bloc. Minilateral groups such as the Quad and AUKUS could be the future of diplomacy, especially in Asia and the Pacific.

1. Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.
2. Sign Up
3. ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER?

Foreign Policy · by Stefan Theil · December 27, 2023

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com