Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"Truth is not what you want it to be. it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie."

- Miyamoto Musashi

"I hate it that Americans are taught to fear some books and some ideas as though they were diseases."

- Kurt Vonnegut

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."

- George Orwell

1. New Batch of Classified Documents Appear on Social Media Sites

2. DOJ opens investigation into leaks of apparent classified US military documents

3. Leaked Ukraine War Plans Complicate Spring Counteroffensive

4. Ukraine, North Korea and Iran included in leaked documents

5. White House, Kirby face backlash from military veterans for defense of chaotic Afghan pullout

6. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 6, 2023

7. China’s Media and Information Warfare

8. U.S. Seeks Ways to Help Burkina Faso’s Military Junta Fight Jihadists

9. Some Ukrainian Troops are Still Using Soviet Methods, Despite US Training

10. Pentagon Investigates More Social-Media Posts Purporting to Include Secret U.S. Documents

11. Here are five ways to make America better | Column by Robert Bruce Adolph

12. How AI-generated content could both fuel disinformation and improve fact-checking

13. America Needs a “Cold War” Strategy for China

14. The Top 5 Reasons Americans Were Unfit for Military Service During World War I

15. ‘Outrageous’: Russia Accused of Spreading Disinformation at U.N. Event

16. Asserting a Cyber Border

17. Washington and Ike's Warning On Foreign Policy Greed

18. New U.S. warehouse center in Poland to store tanks, Bradleys for future fights

19. From Korea to Afghanistan: Special Forces Legend Billy Waugh's Amazing Career Spanned Five Decades

20. Army readies for record-setting logistics exercise in Pacific

21. Human Intel and PsyOps: Running Intelligence Operations Against the Enemy

22. US Special Forces FY24 Budget Request

23. A Nuanced Approach to China Needs Human Rights at the Core

1. New Batch of Classified Documents Appear on Social Media Sites

This is a significant problem. Who is leaking this information? I saw an image on Twitter that described how many US personnel are in Ukraine - to include diplomats and SOF.

New Batch of Classified Documents Appear on Social Media Sites

By Helene Cooper, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt and Thomas Gibbons-Neff

April 7, 2023

5 MIN READ

The New York Times · by Helene Cooper · April 7, 2023

Secret documents that appear to detail American national security secrets on Ukraine, the Middle East and China have surfaced online.

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

The leaked documents come as Ukraine has been preparing for a spring offensive as part of an effort to reclaim territory in the east and the south of the country.Credit...Emile Ducke for The New York Times

April 7, 2023, 5:30 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — A new batch of classified documents that appear to detail American national security secrets from Ukraine to the Middle East to China surfaced on social media sites on Friday, alarming the Pentagon and adding turmoil to a situation that seemed to have caught the Biden administration off guard.

The scale of the leak — analysts say more than 100 documents may have been obtained — along with the sensitivity of the documents themselves, could be hugely damaging, officials said. A senior intelligence officials called the leak “a nightmare for the Five Eyes,” in a reference to the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the so-called Five Eyes nations that broadly share intelligence.

The latest documents were found on Twitter and other sites on Friday, a day after senior Biden administration officials said they were investigating a potential leak of classified Ukrainian war plans, include an assessment of Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. One slide, dated Feb. 23, is labeled “Secret/NoForn,” meaning it was not meant to be shared with foreign countries.

Mick Mulroy, a former senior Pentagon official, said the leak of the classified documents represents “a significant breach in security” that could ultimately Ukrainian military planning. “As many of these were pictures of documents, it appears that it was a deliberate leak done by someone that wished to damage the Ukraine, U.S., and NATO efforts,” he said.

One analyst described what has emerged so far as the “tip of the iceberg.”

Early Friday, senior national security officials dealing with the initial leak, which was first reported by The New York Times, said a new worry had arisen: Was that information the only intelligence that was leaked?

The State of the War

War Plans Leaked: The Pentagon is investigating a leak of classified documents detailing secret American and NATO plans for building up the Ukrainian military ahead of a planned offensive against Russian troops. The documents were recently posted on social media.
Macron in China: President Emmanuel Macron of France and Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, called for a rapid return to peace talks to end the war in Ukraine during a visit by Macron to China.
Finland’s Entry to NATO: The Nordic country officially became the military alliance’s 31st member, in what amounts to a strategic defeat for President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
Drone Warfare: Using aerial drones to spot the enemy and direct artillery fire has become a staple of war for Ukraine and Russia, especially in the fiercely contested city of Bakhmut.

By Friday afternoon, they had their answer. Even as officials at the Pentagon and national security agencies were investigating the source of documents that had appeared on Twitter and on Telegram, another surfaced on 4chan, an anonymous, fringe message board. The 4chan document is a map that purports to show the status of the war in the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, the scene of a fierce, monthslong battle.

But the leaked documents appear to go well beyond highly classified material on Ukraine war plans. Security analysts who have reviewed the documents tumbling onto social media sites say the increasing trove also includes sensitive briefing slides on China, the Indo-Pacific military theater, the Middle East and terrorism.

On Friday, a senior Ukrainian official said that the leak appeared to be a Russian ploy to “discredit” a counteroffensive. Credit...Mauricio Lima for The New York Times

The Pentagon said in a statement on Thursday that the Defense Department was looking into the matter. But privately, officials from several separate national security agencies acknowledged both a rush to find the source of the leaks and a potential for what one official called a steady drip of classified information posted on sites.

The documents on Ukraine’s military appear as photographs of charts of anticipated weapons deliveries, troop and battalion strengths, and other plans. Pentagon officials acknowledge that they are legitimate Defense Department documents, but the copies appear to have been altered in certain parts from their original format. The modified versions, for example, overstate American estimates of Ukrainian war dead and underestimate estimates of Russian troops killed.

On Friday, Ukrainian officials and pro-war Russian bloggers suggested the leak was part of a disinformation effort by the other side, timed to influence Ukraine’s possible spring offensive to reclaim territory in the east and the south of the country.

A senior Ukrainian official said that the leak appeared to be a Russian ploy to discredit a counteroffensive. And the Russian bloggers warned against trusting any information in the documents, which one blogger said could be the work of “Western intelligence in order to mislead our command.”

Behind closed doors, chagrined national security officials were trying to find the culprit. One official said it was likely that the documents did not come from Ukrainian officials, because they did not have access to the specific plans, which bear the imprint of the offices of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. A second official said that determining how the documents were leaked would start with identifying which officials had access to them.

The first tranche of documents appeared to have been posted in early March on Discord, a social media chat platform popular with video gamers, according to Aric Toler, an analyst at Bellingcat, the Dutch investigative site.

In Ukraine, Lt. Col. Yurii Bereza, a battalion commander with Ukraine’s National Guard whose forces have fought in the country’s east in recent months, shrugged off news of the leak.

He noted that information warfare has been so intense that “we can no longer determine where is the truth and where is the lie.”

Natalia Yermak contributed reporting.

The New York Times · by Helene Cooper · April 7, 2023

2. DOJ opens investigation into leaks of apparent classified US military documents

We need to find the criminals who are leaking this information and they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (obviously).

DOJ opens investigation into leaks of apparent classified US military documents | CNN Politics

CNN · by Sean Lyngaas,Natasha Bertrand,Hannah Rabinowitz · April 7, 2023

CNN —

The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the leaks of a trove of apparent US intelligence documents that were posted on social media in recent weeks.

The investigation comes as new documents surfaced Friday covering everything from US support for Ukraine to information about key US allies like Israel, widening the fallout from an already alarming leak. The Pentagon on Thursday said it was looking into the matter after social media posts of apparently classified documents on the war in Ukraine had emerged.

The additional leaked documents that surfaced Friday appeared to contain classified information on topics ranging from the mercenary Wagner Group’s operations in Africa and Israel’s pathways to providing lethal aid to Ukraine, to intelligence about the United Arab Emirates’ ties to Russia and South Korean concerns about providing ammunition to the US for use in Ukraine.

It is unclear who is behind the leaks and where, exactly, they originated.

“The Department of Defense is actively reviewing the matter, and has made a formal referral to the Department of Justice for investigation,” deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh said Friday.

A Justice Department spokesperson told CNN that the department has “been in communication with the Department of Defense related to this matter and have begun an investigation,” declining to comment further.

Some of documents reference classified information from the CIA. A CIA spokesperson told CNN Friday, “We are aware of the social media posts and are looking into the claims.”

Images of some of the documents – which include estimates of Russian casualties and a list of Western weapons systems available to Ukraine – were posted to the social media platform Discord in early March, according to screenshots of the posts reviewed by CNN.

“This sh*t was sitting in a Minecraft Discord server for a month and no one noticed,” Aric Toler, a researcher at investigative outlet Bellingcat who traced the timeline of the posted documents, told CNN. Minecraft is a popular video game.

It wasn’t until this week that the leaked documents started to gain more attention after someone posted a portion of the documents to 4chan, a web forum popular with extremists, and then a Russian speaker posted an altered version of one of the documents on Telegram, Toler said.

US officials believe someone altered that document to make the estimated number of Ukrainians killed in the war far higher than it actually is.

The Pentagon said Thursday that it was aware of the social media posts and it was investigating the matter.

On Discord Friday, speculation and paranoia were rife, with some users wondering if they could get in trouble for re-posting the documents now that the US government is investigating the matter. A user who posted photos of the documents on March 1 appeared to have deleted his accounts on Twitter and Discord.

“The fact that unedited and edited – doctored – versions of some files are available online makes me skeptical that this is a professional Russian intelligence operation,” Thomas Rid, an expert on state-backed information operations, told CNN.

Historically, if an intelligence agency has access to classified material from an adversary and decides to falsify some of the material, they typically don’t make both versions of those documents public, said Rid, who is a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

“That only makes it easier to detect the facts, and thus defeats the purpose,” Rid said.

There is concern, however, that the leaked documents could have real-world impact.

“If real, the leaking of these documents can do significant damage to Ukrainian counteroffensive since this information effectively provides Russia with Ukrainian order of battle — extensive information on capabilities of brigades that would be involved in upcoming counteroffensive,” said Dmitri Alperovitch, a Russia analyst who is executive chairman of Silverado Policy Accelerator.

This headline and story have been updated with additional developments Friday.

CNN’s Alex Marquardt and Jenny Hansler contributed to this report.

CNN · by Sean Lyngaas,Natasha Bertrand,Hannah Rabinowitz · April 7, 2023

3. Leaked Ukraine War Plans Complicate Spring Counteroffensive

Leaked Ukraine War Plans Complicate Spring Counteroffensive

The classified material could provide Russia with a tactical advantage.

An illustration of Alexandra Sharp, World Brief newsletter writerAlexandra Sharp

By Alexandra Sharp, the World Brief writer at Foreign Policy.

Foreign Policy · by Alexandra Sharp · April 7, 2023

Welcome back to World Brief, where we’re looking at leaked Ukraine war documents, U.S. finger-pointing over the Afghan withdrawal, and Israel’s latest strikes in Lebanon.

Top-Secret Leak

Classified war documents on U.S. and NATO efforts to support Ukraine’s military ahead of a planned spring counteroffensive were posted to social media this week. The leaked documents, at least one of which is labeled “Top Secret,” reportedly include maps of Ukraine as well as information on troop and battalion strengths, anticipated weapons deliveries, and casualty numbers. The material, which is dated March 1, does not include detailed battle plans but does provide a glimpse into the Ukrainian military’s status as of five weeks ago. The documents, which seem to have appeared on the internet as early as March 1 and 2, were later posted to Twitter and Telegram.

Later on Friday, another trove of classified information was published on 4chan, an online anonymous message board. More than 100 pages were posted, which included sensitive U.S. briefing slides on topics like China, Indo-Pacific military issues, the Middle East, and terrorism, according to the New York Times. One slide was labeled “Secret/No Forn,” meaning not to be shared with foreign governments. A senior intelligence official who spoke to the Times called this leak a “nightmare for the Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, which is composed of the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

As of now, it’s unclear who published any of the classified information and why, though the U.S. Defense Department has launched an investigation. Pentagon officials have acknowledged that they are legitimate Defense Department documents; however, some of the content seems to have been altered to inflate Ukraine’s casualty numbers. U.S. defense officials indicate this may be part of a push to further Moscow’s disinformation efforts; pro-Russian online accounts have actively publicized the documents since their release. “As many of these were pictures of documents, it appears that it was a deliberate leak done by someone that wished to damage the Ukraine, U.S., and NATO efforts,” Mick Mulroy, a former senior Pentagon official, told the Times.

Although neither sets of released papers seem to provide specific details such as when and where the anticipated Ukrainian military offensive will occur, they do provide important intelligence about the timing of weapons and troop deliveries as well as the progress of troop buildups—both things that could potentially provide Moscow with a tactical advantage. Some military analysts predict the spring strike will focus on Russian-occupied territory in southeastern Ukraine, but according to Ukrainian national security chief Oleksiy Danilov, no more than five people know when and where the spring strike will take place.

As for best strategies, retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis thinks Ukraine’s military should “drive to the Black Sea and split the Russians” on two flanks, coming up behind them. Speaking on FP Live on Thursday, the former NATO supreme allied commander said such an effort would “complicate their ability to manage logistics.” For more from Stavridis, including why he thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to use nuclear weapons and why Washington should go all-in on supporting Kyiv, watch, read, or listen to the interview here.

Today’s Most Read

• The Real Motivation Behind Iran’s Deal With Saudi Arabia by Saeid Golkar and Kasra Aarabi

• Europe’s Energy Crisis That Isn’t by Adam Tooze

• Why Did China Recall Millions of Newspapers? by James Palmer

What We’re Following

U.S. finger-pointing. The Biden administration isn’t done defending its withdrawal from Afghanistan. On Thursday, U.S. President Joe Biden released a summary of classified reports from internal Pentagon and State Department reviews of how U.S. troops left Kabul in August 2021. It concluded that former President Donald Trump was largely to blame for the chaotic situation due to his failure to plan for the U.S. military pullout that his administration negotiated with the Taliban. Democratic officials admit in the report that the U.S. withdrawal should have begun sooner, while Republicans are demanding their own investigation into the calamitous Afghan retreat.

Israel hits Lebanon. Israel carried out airstrikes in southern Lebanon and Gaza on Friday, hitting 10 targets, including tunnels and weapons development sites used by Hamas, according to the Israel Defense Forces. Israel cited the 34 missiles launched from Lebanon on Thursday—of which 25 were intercepted by Israel’s air defense system—as its reason for the airstrikes. No deaths were reported. Israel continues to blame terrorist group Hamas for the earlier assault, while Arab leaders warn Israel of consequences for pursuing further attacks. Hostilities initially escalated after Israeli police raided Al-Aqsa Mosque twice on Wednesday, injuring at least 12 Palestinians and arresting hundreds of people at the third-holiest site in Islam.

Farming clashes in Nigeria. At least 46 people were killed on Wednesday in Umogidi, Nigeria, during clashes between herders and farmers. The rural community has been the site of numerous attacks by nomads in the last month. Although motives remain unclear, Benue has been one of the hardest-hit states in Nigeria for disputes over farmland destroyed by grazing cattle. Locals fear more conflict over land and resources is still to come.

What in the World?

On Wednesday, Indian opposition parties condemned the removal of references from some schoolbooks to which late national leader’s pursuit of Hindu-Muslim unity?

A. Former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru

B. Anti-colonial activist Mahatma Gandhi

C. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

D. Former President Rajendra Prasad

Odds and Ends

French cabinet minister Marlène Schiappa posed for the cover of Playboy’s France edition, published on Thursday, to discuss LGBTQ and women’s rights. Despite being fully clothed in the photoshoot, some of her political opponents criticized her choice of publication, saying it was not appropriate—especially given France’s current social unrest.

And the answer is…

B. Anti-colonial activist Mahatma Gandhi

The Indian government’s recent efforts to build up a Hindu-nationalist state have also fed the growing legend of a fugitive Sikh separatist, FP’s Anchal Vohra writes.

To take the rest of FP’s weekly international news quiz, click here, or sign up to be alerted when a new one is published.

Foreign Policy · by Alexandra Sharp · April 7, 2023

4. Ukraine, North Korea and Iran included in leaked documents

Who is behind this?

Ukraine, North Korea and Iran included in leaked documents

The Department of Justice is investigating the leak.

ByLuis Martinez and Chris Looft

April 7, 2023, 9:10 PM

ABCNews.com · by ABC News

The leak of U.S. secret documents about Ukraine continued on social media on Friday as an ABC News review found that dozens of documents were first posted on the internet in early March shortly after they were drafted and also included secret documents about Iran's nuclear program, North Korea's missile program, and other regions of the world.

The new developments highlight the broadening security concerns about what was already a major security leak of classified information about the U.S. effort to assist Ukraine's military.

Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said that "The Department of Defense is actively reviewing the matter, and has made a formal referral to the Department of Justice for investigation."

The Department confirmed that they were now investigating the leak.

"We have been in communication with the Department of Defense related to this matter and have begun an investigation. We decline further comment," a spokesperson for the Department of Justice said in a statement.

The handful of documents posted on social media platforms on Thursday included precise details about the Ukrainian battlefield, U.S. weapons use by Ukraine, and the training of Ukrainian troops as of March 1. The documents posted do not appear to include any military planning for the long-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive that is expected for later this spring.

Those postings of what appeared to be U.S. military documents triggered a Pentagon review into how the documents ended up on the internet.

In this Sept. 1, 2021, file photo, the Pentagon seal is shown in the Pentagon Briefing Room in Arlington, Va.

Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE

MORE: Russia-Ukraine live updates: US announces $2.6B in new security aid for Ukraine

"We are aware of the reports of social media posts, and the Department is reviewing the matter," Singh said in a statement provided to ABC News on Thursday.

A U.S. official told ABC News that the U.S. government is working to have the documents brought down by social media platforms.

But as of Friday, photographs of those documents were still being posted on various social media platforms, as well as a new image of a March 1 map of the battlefield situation around Bakhmut, the city that has been the focus of heavy fighting in recent months.

The Bakhmut map was one of dozens that an ABC News internet review determined were posted on the internet in early March, shortly after they were drafted.

Those documents also included what appear to be U.S. intelligence documents about Iran's nuclear program, North Korea's missile program, China, and other regions of the world.

Asked about the new developments a Pentagon spokesman referred back to its earlier statement.

A U.S. official discounted the intelligence value of the documents posted on the web telling ABC News that "the assessment is that the documents are of limited intelligence value and appear to have been altered from the original documents."

The official described them as "a snapshot in time from five weeks ago and the disposition of forces is no longer relevant to the battlefield."

However, the new information that the documents may have been posted shortly after they were drafted by the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence raises new concerns about their potential impact at the time.

Each of the documents posted on social media platforms appears to be photographs of folded printouts of individual PowerPoint slides produced by the U.S. military that contain details of the battlefield situation in Ukraine on March 1.

Some of them also contain information about the readiness rates of Ukrainian units, particularly of nine Ukrainian military brigades being supplied by the United States and NATO allies.

And in at least one instance, the documents appear to have been altered to reflect Russian fatality estimates that are significantly lower than the 200,000 killed and wounded that have been publicly stated by U.S. officials.

That alteration has led to speculation among national security analysts that Russia may be behind the dissemination of the leak.

A Ukrainian serviceman fires a rocket-propelleged grenade (RPG) during a training exercise in Donetsk region on April 6, 2023, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

AFP via Getty Images

"As many of these were pictures of documents, it appears that it was a deliberate leak done by someone that wished to damage the Ukraine, U.S., and NATO efforts," said Mick Mulroy, an ABC News contributor and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.

"Russia's obvious manipulation of some facts has made it more difficult to determine what is real and what is not," said Mulroy. "Something that may help somewhat limit the damage overall ironically."

Mulroy speculates that a leak investigation has already started that "it will be very thorough in finding out how this happened and who was responsible. That individual (or individuals) needs to be held accountable."

Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior Ukrainian official, said in a statement that the leak contained a "very large amount of fictitious information" that appeared to be "standard elements of operational games by Russian intelligence and nothing more.

"Russia has no doubt that the United States or NATO are directly or indirectly involved in the conflict," Putin's spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said about the leaked documents on Friday.

The Pentagon says it is reviewing the apparent leak, but if a formal investigation is launched, it would presumably include a look at officials who would have access to the documents.

Investigators in previous leak investigations have been known to use polygraph tests to help determine the truthfulness of people being interviewed for the investigation.

ABCNews.com · by ABC News

5. White House, Kirby face backlash from military veterans for defense of chaotic Afghan pullout

Videos at the link: https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-kirby-backlash-military-veterans-defense-afghanistan-withdrawal-report

White House, Kirby face backlash from military veterans for defense of chaotic Afghan pullout

Save Our Allies' co-founder blasted the administration, while a retired Green Beret said veterans are worried about lessons not learned.

foxnews.com · by Charles Creitz | Fox News

Video

Afghanistan wasn't a withdrawal; it was a surrender: Chad Robichaux

Save Our Allies co-founder Chad Robichaux weighs in on the first House hearing on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan on 'Fox News @ Night.'

A retired Marine who executed many civilian rescues from Afghanistan offered a blistering rebuttal to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and his presentation of the Biden administration's after-action report, calling the retired admiral's presentation "a national tragedy."

Kirby held an at-times confrontational press conference Thursday where he defended the Biden administration's withdrawal as largely successful and noted the after-action report's purpose was "not accountability."

"The purpose of the document that we're putting out today is to sort of collate the chief reviews and findings of the agencies that did after action reviews," he said, after Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked who might be "fired" over the chaos.

"For all this talk of chaos. I just didn't see it. Not from my perch," Kirby said later in the presser, adding that at one point in the evacuation, planes were departing Hamid Karzai International Airport every 48 minutes with Afghans and Americans alike aboard.

POMPEO TORCHES KIRBY AS WH SHIFTS BLAME TO TRUMP FOR DEADLY AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL

Chad Robichaux, John Kirby (Fox/Reuters)

"[N]ot one single mission was missed. So I'm sorry. I just don't buy the whole argument of chaos," he said.

Those comments incensed Chad Robichaux, a veteran of the Afghanistan war and co-founder of the Save Our Allies group that has evacuated Americans and others from Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Robichaux characterized Kirby as someone who knew his remarks were not entirely accurate regarding facts on the ground, and said the American people see through the administration's "lies."

"It is no shocker when Biden or his clown-show press secretaries lie, but to have a former U.S. Navy admiral do the same is a national tragedy," Robichaux said.

"As a fellow veteran it makes me sad to see former military leaders turn on our citizens for personal and political gain."

He called the presentation of Kirby as a retired flag officer and military adviser "one of the biggest lies in this week's brief," pointing to his most recent roles as a spokesperson in the Obama and Biden administrations and as an analyst for CNN.

"He is a long way from 1986 when he raised his hand in an oath to serve the American people," Robichaux charged. "His loyalty is to protecting corrupt politicians in DC -- not the people."

Robichaux's group, Save Our Allies, was also instrumental in rescuing Fox News correspondent Benjamin Hall after he had been gravely wounded in Ukraine.

Save Our Allies worked closely with top Biden administration officials, including at the Pentagon and State Department, to bring Hall home.

BIDEN ADMIN REVIEW OF AFGHAN WITHDRAWAL REPEATEDLY BLAMES TRUMP

Video

Robichaux previously estimated that, given the reported number of applicants for evacuation or asylum – which included the Marine's friend and former interpreter Azizullah Aziz --it would have taken 140 years at the 2021 pace for all qualified persons to be evacuated from Afghanistan.

Following Kirby's briefing Thursday, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also expressed outrage at criticisms of "the previous (Trump) administration," saying Biden made a "political decision" to announce a withdrawal date in spite of reported advice to the contrary.

On Kirby's part, the spokesman said the after-action report could now be reviewed by Congress, which can "lay out things that could have gone better."

"Nobody is saying that everything was perfect, but there was a lot that went right. And a lot of Afghans are now living better lives in this country and other countries around the world because of the sacrifices and the work of so many American government officials," he said Thursday.

Video

"The review process isn’t over," Kirby added. "This is the next muscle-movement in what will be a long process to better understand and comprehend and adjust to what we learned and what we did in Afghanistan."

Retired Green Beret Scott Mann, whose "Task Force: Pineapple" also executed civilian evacuations within Afghanistan, told Fox News on Friday the reported lack of proverbial 'lessons learned' was "egregious."

Video

"I've been talking to veterans and veterans groups all morning about this. And one of the reasons that I think that veterans are so upset about this is like my friend… an Afghanistan combat veteran, says, it's not about what happened," Mann said on "The Story."

"[T]he absence of accountability: What worries veterans so much is that we've got all of these problems now with violent extremist groups coming up in Afghanistan. We've got a massive moral injury on our veteran population -- And if you're not willing to take accountability for your actions as a leader at any level, then there's a real good chance you're not going to take any actions to fix what happened."

On Friday, retired Lt. Col. Danny Davis disagreed with the claims of lack of "chaos," telling "America Reports" that there is no way to categorize what was happening on the ground in Kabul in August 2021 other than chaos.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I don't know what definition of ‘not chaos’ you can have when you have those images that are iconic … where people are chasing the aircraft as it is driving across the tarmac… ad of course, the catastrophic explosion that killed a lot of U.S. Marines," Davis said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. As of publication time, there has been no response.

Charles Creitz is a reporter for Fox News Digital.

He joined Fox News in 2013 as a writer and production assistant.

Charles covers media, politics and breaking news, and has covered the annual CPAC conference for Fox News Digital.

Charles is a Pennsylvania native and graduated from Temple University with a B.A. in Broadcast Journalism. Story tips can be sent to charles.creitz@fox.com.

foxnews.com · by Charles Creitz | Fox News

6. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 6, 2023

Maps/graphics: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-6-2023

Key Takeaways

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow on April 5 and 6 to discuss further Union State integration, with Putin likely focused on strengthening Russian economic control over Belarus.
Lukashenko delivered boilerplate rhetoric that continues to indicate that he has no intention of involving Belarus further in Russia’s war effort.
Russian commanders are reportedly constructing specialized company-size units within key frontline formations engaged in urban combat to reinforce the diminished combat effectiveness of most Russian units.
Russian forces will likely deploy these “Storm Z” units along the Avdiivka–Donetsk City frontline.
China continues to rhetorically downplay its support for Russia and demonstrate that there are limits to the declared “no limits” Russian–Chinese partnership, but it will not be a true neutral arbiter in the war.
Russian forces conducted limited ground attacks along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line.
Russian forces continued ground attacks in and around Bakhmut and along the Avdiivka–Donetsk City line.
Ukrainian officials indicated that Russian forces are able to maintain a suitable rate of artillery fire in prioritized areas of the front at the expense of other sectors.
Russian forces may have withdrawn equipment from occupied Crimea for redeployment elsewhere in southern Ukraine out of fear of a Ukrainian counteroffensive.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu visited Russian Defense Industrial Base (DIB) enterprises in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast to monitor the implementation of state defense orders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin held one-on-one meetings with Russian occupation authorities.

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 6, 2023

Apr 6, 2023 - Press ISW

Download the PDF

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 6, 2023

Karolina Hird, Riley Bailey, Angela Howard, Grace Mappes, Layne Philipson, and Mason Clark

April 6, 4:30pm ET

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

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

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow on April 5 and 6 to discuss further Union State integration, with Putin likely focused on strengthening Russian economic control over Belarus. Putin and Lukashenko held a one-on-one meeting on April 5 and attended a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State on April 6 to address Union State integration efforts on security, economic, defense, cultural, and humanitarian topics.[1] Putin claimed that Russian and Belarusian officials have fulfilled 74 percent of 28 Union State programs and highlighted the creation of a joint system for indirect taxes, measures to form general standards for Russian and Belarusian industrial enterprises, and efforts to unify Belarusian and Russian trade legislation.[2] Putin and Lukashenko both noted that Russian and Belarusian officials are focused on import substitution measures (likely to mitigate Western sanctions) and supporting microelectronic industries.[3] Putin stated that Russian and Belarusian officials are continuing the process of creating a joint oil and gas market and are working on drafting an agreement for the formation of a single electricity market.[4] The Kremlin is likely advancing longstanding efforts to subsume elements of Belarus’ defense industrial base (DIB), and both states are likely using Union State economic integration efforts to augment their ongoing sanctions evasion measures.[5] Putin and Lukashenko also likely highlighted strengthening economic cooperation to support their ongoing efforts to falsely reassure the Russian and Belarusian publics that Western sanctions regimes will not have long-term consequences.[6]

Putin and Lukashenko also discussed bilateral security issues during their one-on-one meeting and at the Supreme State Council meeting, but official Kremlin and Belarusian readouts offered little concrete details on these discussions. Putin and Lukashenko stated that Russian and Belarusian officials began work on a Security Concept for the Union State, but offered no details for what the joint security document would include.[7] Lukashenko stated that a single joint Russian–Belarusian regional air defense system is already operating, likely referring to the recent deployment of Russian S-400 air defense systems to Belarus.[8] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on April 6 that Lukashenko and Putin did not discuss the placement of Russian strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus following Putin’s March 25 announcement that Russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.[9]

Lukashenko delivered boilerplate rhetoric that continues to indicate that he has no intention of involving Belarus further in Russia’s war effort. Lukashenko stated that NATO is conducting a purposeful buildup of forces along the borders of the Union State and that the West has unleashed an informational, political, and economic war against Belarus and Russia.[10] Lukashenko has previously employed such rhetoric in an attempt to justify resisting Kremlin pressure to further support the Russian war effort in Ukraine by arguing that Belarus needs to protect the western flank of the Union State.[11] ISW has written at length about why Lukashenko is extraordinarily unlikely to further involve Belarus in the war in Ukraine.[12] ISW has previously assessed that Lukashenko is increasingly losing maneuvering room with the Kremlin amid the Kremlin’s steady pressure campaign to formalize the Russian-Belarusian Union State, and Lukashenko may be acquiescing to further integration measures while rejecting Putin’s likely larger demand for the direct participation of Belarusian forces in Russia’s war against Ukraine.[13]

Russian commanders are reportedly constructing specialized company-size units within key frontline formations engaged in urban combat to reinforce the diminished combat effectiveness of most Russian units. A reliable Ukrainian reserve officer released a reportedly captured document on April 6 detailing the recruitment of personnel (who receive the status of BARS reservists) to form new “Storm Z” companies within elements of the 8th Combined Arms Army (Southern Military District) and the 1st Army Corps, the armed forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic.[14] Each “Storm Z” company is created outside of conventional army unit structure and apparently is formed of newly recruited reservists and attached in some manner to existing Russian regiments and brigades, rather than adding additional assets or providing specialized training to existing frontline companies. It is unclear at this time how these “Storm Z” units fit into Russian command structures at the battalion level and above and why Russian units are forming new companies, continuing a standing Russian tendency throughout the war in Ukraine to break down doctrinal unit structures. Each company is comprised of 100 personnel, broken into four capture squads (10 personnel each), four fire support squads (10 personnel each), a 2-person company command element, a 5-person combat engineering group, an 8-person reconnaissance group, a three-person medevac group, and a 2-person UAV crew.[15] ”Storm Z” companies are intended to conduct urban combat operations or operations in complicated geographic areas to capture important and strategic objects such as strongholds, command posts, and communication centers.[16] The Ukrainian reserve officer noted that the personnel that staff these companies receive 10 to 15 days of refresher training, a remarkably short amount of time to adequately train personnel (even reservists with some experience) to perform complex combat tasks and create unit cohesion.

The “Storm Z” companies will likely primarily deploy along the Avdiivka–Donetsk City frontline, where Southern Military District (SMD) units are heavily committed to continuously unsuccessful offensive operations. The Ukrainian reserve officer stated that the document requires the establishment of “Storm Z” companies in various separate motorized rifle brigades of the 1st Army Corps (forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic) and motorized rifle regiments, tank regiments, and separate motorized rifle brigades of the 150th Motorized Rifle Division (part of the 8th Combined Arms Army).[17] ISW has observed the heavy commitment of DNR forces along the entire Avdiivka–Donetsk City frontline and noted that the 150th Motorized Rifle Division has been particularly active in Marinka, on the southwestern outskirts of Donetsk City.[18] Russian offensive operations along this frontline remain largely unsuccessful and have failed to secure more than tactical advances in the area.[19] Russian military command likely seeks to create ”Storm Z” companies and attach them to already-committed elements in order to reinforce minor tactical success and encourage further offensive operations and gains. However, due to the ramshackle construction of yet more ad hoc Russian units, as well as the already degraded quality and poor morale that is pervasive within DNR units in this area, it is unlikely that the use of these formations will lend Russian forces on this frontline a significant offensive edge.

China continues to rhetorically downplay its support for Russia and demonstrate that there are limits to the declared “no limits” Russian–Chinese partnership, but it will not be a true neutral arbiter in the war. French President Emmanuel Macron met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on April 6 and urged Xi to “bring Russia to its senses” and “bring everyone back to the negotiating table.”[20] Xi stated that China “advocates for peace talks and seeks a political solution” without going into significant detail or assigning blame.[21] China’s maintained neutral status and ongoing talks with Western leaders, refusal to blatantly condemn the West, and minimization of relations with and withholding of concrete support to Russia are likely a source of ongoing frustration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, as ISW has previously assessed.[22] However, Xi’s equivocating comments do not indicate any serious intent by Beijing to overtly pressure Russia to end the invasion of Ukraine, as would be necessary for serious peace talks.

Key Takeaways

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in Moscow on April 5 and 6 to discuss further Union State integration, with Putin likely focused on strengthening Russian economic control over Belarus.
Lukashenko delivered boilerplate rhetoric that continues to indicate that he has no intention of involving Belarus further in Russia’s war effort.
Russian commanders are reportedly constructing specialized company-size units within key frontline formations engaged in urban combat to reinforce the diminished combat effectiveness of most Russian units.
Russian forces will likely deploy these “Storm Z” units along the Avdiivka–Donetsk City frontline.
China continues to rhetorically downplay its support for Russia and demonstrate that there are limits to the declared “no limits” Russian–Chinese partnership, but it will not be a true neutral arbiter in the war.
Russian forces conducted limited ground attacks along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line.
Russian forces continued ground attacks in and around Bakhmut and along the Avdiivka–Donetsk City line.
Ukrainian officials indicated that Russian forces are able to maintain a suitable rate of artillery fire in prioritized areas of the front at the expense of other sectors.
Russian forces may have withdrawn equipment from occupied Crimea for redeployment elsewhere in southern Ukraine out of fear of a Ukrainian counteroffensive.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu visited Russian Defense Industrial Base (DIB) enterprises in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast to monitor the implementation of state defense orders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin held one-on-one meetings with Russian occupation authorities.

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

Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine (comprised of two subordinate main efforts)
Russian Subordinate Main Effort #1 – Capture the remainder of Luhansk Oblast and push westward into eastern Kharkiv Oblast and encircle northern Donetsk Oblast
Russian Subordinate Main Effort #2 – Capture the entirety of Donetsk Oblast
Russian Supporting Effort – Southern Axis
Russian Mobilization and Force Generation Efforts
Activities in Russian-occupied areas

Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine

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

Russian forces conducted limited ground attacks along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line on April 6. Geolocated footage published on April 2 indicates that Russian forces likely made marginal gains northwest of Kuzemivka (15km northwest of Svatove).[23] Russian Western Grouping of Forces (Western Military District) Spokesperson Sergey Zybinsky claimed on April 6 that Russian forces destroyed three Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups and disrupted Ukrainian rotations near Dvorichna (15km northeast of Kupyansk), Pishchane (25km northwest of Svatove), and Stelmakhivka (15km west of Svatove).[24] A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces resumed offensive operations near Novoselivske (15km northwest of Svatove).[25] Russian Central Grouping of Forces (Central Military District) Spokesperson Alexander Savchuk claimed that Russian forces thwarted a Ukrainian attempt to regain lost positions near Dibrova (5km southwest of Kreminna).[26] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces conducted unsuccessful offensive operations near Nevske (18km northwest of Kreminna), Hryhorivka (11km south of Kreminna), and Spirne (25km south of Kreminna).[27]

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

Russian forces continued ground attacks in and around Bakhmut on April 6. Geolocated footage posted on April 6 shows that Russian forces made a marginal advance in central Bakhmut north of the T0504 highway.[28] More geolocated footage posted on April 6 shows that Ukrainian forces repelled Wagner Group ground attacks south of Ivanivske (6km west of Bakhmut).[29] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces conducted unsuccessful ground attacks in Bakhmut and northwest of Bakhmut near Bohdanivka (6km northwest) and Orikhovo-Vasylivka (11km northwest), and west of Bakhmut near Ivanivske.[30] Russian milbloggers claimed that Wagner forces made marginal advances in northwestern Bakhmut and gained an unspecified foothold near the Metallurg Stadium in central Bakhmut.[31] Another Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces are advancing in northern, eastern, and southern Bakhmut but failed to advance near Bohdanivka.[32]

Russian forces continued ground attacks along the Avdiivka–Donetsk City frontline on April 6. Ukrainian Tavriisk Direction Forces Joint Press Center Spokesperson Colonel Oleksiy Dmytrashkivskyi reported that Russian forces sustained 4,000 losses near Avdiivka in the past week and are sending an unspecified amount of the 4,000-personnel contingent that previously undertook training in Belarus to reinforce the Avdiivka-Marinka line.[33] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces conducted unsuccessful ground attacks near Avdiivka, Novokalynove (7km north of Avdiivka), Sieverne (5km west of Avdiivka), Pervomaiske (10km southwest of Avdiivka), and Marinka.[34] Russian sources claimed that Russian forces made unspecified gains towards Avdiivka, Keramik (8km north of Avdiivka), and Pervomaiske.[35]

Ukrainian officials indicated that Russian forces are able to maintain a suitable rate of artillery fire in prioritized areas of the front at the expense of other sectors. Ukrainian Eastern Group of Forces Spokesperson Colonel Serhiy Cherevaty stated on April 5 that Russian forces do not suffer artillery ammunition shortages in areas where Russian forces prioritize offensive operations, such as in the Bakhmut direction.[36] The Ukrainian State Border Guard Service stated on April 5 that Wagner Group forces still suffer from artillery shell shortages, however.[37] Dmytrashkivskyi stated on April 6 that Russian forces on the Avdiivka-Marinka line experience shell shortages closer to the weekend, suggesting that these forces burn through their allocated artillery shells too quickly and are resupplied at least partially on a weekly basis.[38]

The Kremlin appears to be perpetuating an information operation to discredit certain Ukrainian forces. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that a squad commander of the Ukrainian 53rd Mechanized Brigade near Avdiivka surrendered his squad to Russian forces, but that other Ukrainian forces intentionally fired on and killed the surrendering personnel before Russian forces could transport them to rear areas.[39] The Russian MoD made this claim in an unusually late daily report, and Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated this claim during a meeting on April 6.[40] ISW is unable to confirm this Russian claim.

Russian sources are likely exaggerating claims of offensive activity around Vuhledar. A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces conducted a significant MLRS strike against Vuhledar to pre-empt a ground attack, but ISW has seen no indications of either a large series of strikes or an attack.[41] Another milblogger claimed that Russian forces are using unguided aerial FAB-500 bombs modified for long range precision strikes near Vuhledar.[42] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces did not conduct offensive operations in western Donetsk Oblast.[43]

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

Russian forces may have withdrawn equipment from occupied Crimea for redeployment elsewhere in southern Ukraine out of fear of a Ukrainian counteroffensive. Satellite imagery shows the withdrawal of a significant amount of armored fighting vehicles, tanks, and towed artillery systems from a depot in Medvedivka (20km northeast of Dzhankoy along the M18 highway) between March 17 and April 5, though ISW cannot confirm their destination at this time.[44]

Russian forces continued defensive operations and routine shelling in southern Ukraine on April 6.[45] Ukrainian Tavriisk Direction Forces Joint Press Center Spokesperson Colonel Oleksiy Dmytrashkivskyi noted that Russian forces in Zaporizhia Oblast are not trying to storm Ukrainian positions and are instead focusing on artillery strikes and preparing defensive fortifications.[46]

Ukrainian forces continue efforts to strike Russian rear positions and logistic nodes in southern Ukraine. Russian sources claimed on April 6 that Ukrainian forces launched six HIMARS rockets at Melitopol, occupied Zaporizhia Oblast, and claimed that Russian air defense intercepted all six of the rockets.[47] Ukrainian Mayor of Melitopol Ivan Fedorov reported the sound of explosions in the Melitopol area and noted that Russian forces sent ambulances to the Aviamistechka airfield despite claiming that air defenses successfully intercepted all of the rockets.[48] Ukrainian Joint Coordination Press Center of the Southern Forces Head Nataliya Humenyuk also noted on April 6 that effective Ukrainian strikes on Russian positions on the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast have reduced the number of artillery positions from which Russian force can strike the west (right) bank of Kherson Oblast.[49]

Russian sources continue to frame Russia as the sole guarantor of the safety of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). A prominent Russian milblogger and Putin-appointment member of the Russian Human Rights Council published a long article on April 6 lauding the Russian national guard (Rosgvardia) for guarding the ZNPP and accusing Ukraine of trying to strike the plant and exert pressure on employees to create an unsafe situation.[50] Russian sources have continuously framed Ukraine as acting irresponsibly near the plant to consolidate Russia’s control of Ukrainian energy and nuclear assets.[51]

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

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu visited Russian defense industrial base (DIB) enterprises in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast — including the Arzamas Machine Building Plant — on April 6 to monitor the implementation of state defense orders.[52] Shoigu’s visits are likely part of an ongoing effort to investigate roadblocks within, reinvigorate, and restore the reputation of Russia’s underperforming DIB. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) amplified the DIB enterprises‘ reports that they increased ammunition production volume several times over and implemented a program to expand further weapons production capacity.[53]

Different sectors of the Russian war effort are almost certainly competing for manpower due to extreme Russian personnel shortages in all sectors caused by prior recruitment waves. Russia’s DIB, contract armed forces, private military companies (PMCs), Combat Reserve of the Country (BARS) units, and conscription authorities have all launched increasingly aggressive recruitment efforts over recent weeks to target an ever-diminishing, overlapping pool of suitable recruits.[54] Chuvashia Republic Head Oleg Nikolaev tentatively proposed on April 5 that Russian authorities equate five years of work at a defense plant with military service.[55] Implementation of such a measure would further drain Russian benefits programs for those affiliated with the war effort and could also force defense industries to compete in benefits offerings or directly enable Russians to forgo military service in favor of work in Russia’s DIB.

Russian authorities are taking further steps to prosecute Russians for avoiding service. Russian opposition outlet Important Stories amplified reports from several Omsk Oblast residents on April 6 that a small number of Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officers are questioning Omsk Oblast residents who temporarily left Russia following the announcement of “partial” mobilization as to their reasons for going abroad.[56]

Zaporizhia Oblast occupation head Yevgeny Balitsky remarked after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on April 6 that the Russian MoD subordinated Balitsky’s volunteer battalion, the Sudaplatov Battalion, to the BARS-32 formation.[57] BARS formations appear to play an increasing role in volunteer recruitment and supporting irregular Russian volunteer formations, as ISW has previously reported.[58]

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

Russian President Vladimir Putin held one-on-one meetings with Russian occupation authorities on April 6. Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) Head Denis Pushilin stated on April 6 that he and Putin discussed issues with water supply, constructing roads, and expanding railway infrastructure to ensure greater connectivity to Russia.[59] Luhansk People’s Republic (DNR) Head Leonid Pasechnik stated that he and Putin discussed several issues concerning social, housing, and communal services, as well as education and medicine.[60] Zaporizhia Oblast Occupation Head Yevgeny Balitsky reported that he and Putin discussed restoring transport infrastructure throughout occupied Zaporizhia Oblast.[61] Balitsky also thanked Putin for supporting the maternity capital initiative, which he claims has already started operating in occupied territories.[62] Kherson Occupation Administration Head Vladimir Saldo and Putin discussed issues with gas supply in occupied Kherson Oblast .[63]

Significant activity in Belarus (ISW assesses that a Russian or Belarusian attack into northern Ukraine in early 2023 is extraordinarily unlikely and has thus restructured this section of the update. It will no longer include counter-indicators for such an offensive.)

ISW will continue to report daily observed Russian and Belarusian military activity in Belarus, but these are not indicators that Russian and Belarusian forces are preparing for an imminent attack on Ukraine from Belarus. ISW will revise this text and its assessment if it observes any unambiguous indicators that Russia or Belarus is preparing to attack northern Ukraine.

Belarusian military officials provided an update on the joint Russian-Belarusian Regional Grouping of Forces (RGV) on April 6. Belarusian Head of the Combat Training Directorate Major General Alexander Bas stated that over 500 Belarusian instructors are engaged in the training of RGV troops and that Belarusian trainers seek to apply Russian lessons from Ukraine to the education of the RGV.[64] Bas emphasized the role of the RGV in upholding the security of the Union State.[65]

Belarusian forces continued combat exercises throughout Belarus on April 6. The Belarusian Ministry of Defense stated that elements of the 115th Anti-Aircraft Missile Regiment, 38th Brest Separate Guard Airborne Assault Brigade, and the 86th Communication Brigade conducted various tactical exercises.[66]

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

[1] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70883 ; https://president.gov dot by/ru/events/zasedanie-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva ; http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70874;

[2] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70883

[3] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70883 ; https://president.gov dot by/ru/events/zasedanie-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva ; http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70874;

[4] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70883

[5] https://isw.pub/UkrWar021723 ; https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr...

[6] https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign...

[7] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70883 ; https://president.gov dot by/ru/events/zasedanie-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva

[8] https://president.gov dot by/ru/events/zasedanie-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva

[9] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-putin-lukashenko-did-not-di...

[10] https://president.gov dot by/ru/events/zasedanie-vysshego-gosudarstvennogo-soveta-soyuznogo-gosudarstva

[11] https://isw.pub/UkrWar120122

[12] https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-ass...

[13] https://isw.pub/UkrWar021723 ; https://isw.pub/UkrWar122022

[14] https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1643832673872363520?s=20; http...

[15] https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1643832673872363520?s=20; http...

[16] https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1643832673872363520?s=20; http...

[17] https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1643832673872363520?s=20; http...

[18] https://t.me/nm_dnr/10101; https://t.me/nm_dnr/10108; https://t.me/mil...

[19] https://isw.pub/UkrWar032723; https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder... https://isw.pub/UkrWar032023

[20] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65198757; https://www.reuters... com/world/high-hopes-china-eu-leaders-prepare-xi-talks-2023-04-06/

[21] https://www.reuters dot com/world/ukraine-pushes-western-warplane-coalition-2023-04-06/; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65198757; https://www.reuters...

[22] https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-ass...

[23] https://t.me/rian_ru/198674 ; https://twitter.com/auditor_ya/status/16...

[24] https://t.me/mod_russia/25433

[25] https://t.me/wargonzo/11794

[26] https://t.me/mod_russia/25409

[27] https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid023n71k3dYk3R9xsGgma...

[28] https://twitter.com/operativno_ZSU/status/1643926270793613313?s=20; https://twitter.com/auditor_ya/status/1643947158641549318?s=20

[29] https://twitter.com/Danspiun/status/1644007138723864576?s=20; https://twitter.com/SerDer_Daniels/status/1643939792109940736?s=20; https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1643955860459122689; https://t.me/volodymyrzolkin/8087

[30] https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid0foQPeWN6pDsqEb1cSuV... https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid023n71k3dYk3R9xsGgma...

[31] https://t.me/z_arhiv/20112; https://t.me/readovkanews/56310

[32] https://t.me/wargonzo/11794

[33] https://armyinform.com dot ua/2023/04/06/vorog-prodovzhuye-obstrilyuvaty-donechchynu-ta-zaporizhzhya-oleksij-dmytrashkivskyj/

[34] https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid023n71k3dYk3R9xsGgma... https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid0foQPeWN6pDsqEb1cSuV...

[35] https://t.me/wargonzo/11794; https://t.me/readovkanews/56310

[36] https://suspilne dot media/435603-v-oon-prodovzat-rozsliduvati-zlocini-rosian-ssa-nadaut-boepripasi-406-den-vijni-onlajn/

[37] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=210526464933477

[38] https://armyinform.com dot ua/2023/04/06/vorog-prodovzhuye-obstrilyuvaty-donechchynu-ta-zaporizhzhya-oleksij-dmytrashkivskyj/

[39] https://t.me/mod_russia/25435

[40] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70879

[41] https://t.me/russkiy_opolchenec/36262; https://t.me/russkiy_opolchenec/36257

[42] https://t.me/milchronicles/1740; https://t.me/NeoficialniyBeZsonoV/23975; https://t.me/sashakots/39193

[43] https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid023n71k3dYk3R9xsGgma...

[44] https://twitter.com/bradyafr/status/1643755617683644418?s=20; https://t...

[45] https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid023n71k3dYk3R9xsGgma... ua/2023/04/06/vorog-prodovzhuye-obstrilyuvaty-donechchynu-ta-zaporizhzhya-oleksij-dmytrashkivskyj/

[46] https://armyinform.com dot ua/2023/04/06/vorog-prodovzhuye-obstrilyuvaty-donechchynu-ta-zaporizhzhya-oleksij-dmytrashkivskyj/

[47] https://t.me/kommunist/16798; https://t.me/basurin_e/575; https://t.me...

[48] https://t.me/ivan_fedorov_melitopol/1659

[49] https://suspilne dot media/436764-oboronna-dopomoga-polsi-vijska-rf-atakuut-na-4-napramkah-407-den-vijni-onlajn/?anchor=live_1680765775&utm_source=copylink&utm_medium=ps; https://armyinform.com dot ua/2023/04/06/zastosuvannya-vorogom-aviacziyi-z-kerovanymy-aviaczijnymy-bombamy-cze-krok-vidchayu-nataliya-gumenyuk/

[50] https://ria dot ru/20230406/zaporozhe-1863236820.html; https://t.me/sashakots/39208

[51] https://isw.pub/UkrWar030323; https://isw.pub/UkrWar012723; https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign...

[52] https://t.me/mod_russia/25423; https://t.me/mod_russia/25432; https://...

[53] https://t.me/mod_russia/25423; https://t.me/mod_russia/25432; https://...

[54] https://ircity dot ru/text/society/2023/04/05/72192860/; https://trk7 dot ru/news/155426.html; https://www.e1 dot ru/text/gorod/2023/04/05/72194627/?utm_source=telegram&utm_medium=messenger&utm_campaign=e1; https://t.me/vashdozor/4163; https://t.me/Baikal_People/2261; https://news dot vtomske.ru/news/197843-vozmojno-kto-to-popal-v-finansovuyu-yamu-v-tomskoi-oblasti-usililas-agitaciya-na-slujbu-po-kontraktu; https://t.me/Govorit_NeMoskva/6908

[55] https://t.me/ChuvashiaDream/6707

[56] https://storage dot googleapis.com/istories/news/2023/04/05/fsb-nachala-vizivat-na-besedu-rossiyan-uezzhavshikh-ot-mobilizatsii-za-granitsu/index.html; https://meduza dot io/news/2023/04/06/omskoe-upravlenie-fsb-nachalo-vyzyvat-na-doprosy-teh-kto-uezzhal-iz-rossii-ot-mobilizatsii

[57] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70881

[58] https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-ass...

[59] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70879

[60] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70880

[61] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70881

[62] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70881

[63] http://kremlin dot ru/events/president/news/70882

[64] https://t.me/modmilby/25263; https://t.me/modmilby/25272

[65] https://t.me/modmilby/25263; https://t.me/modmilby/25272

[66] https://t.me/modmilby/25249; https://t.me/modmilby/25229; https://t.me...

China’s Media and Information Warfare - The Globalist

One of Beijing’s goals globally is to promote its model of technology-enabled authoritarianism. Democracies ought to share best practices on how to respond.

April 6, 2023

By Joshua Kurlantzick

theglobalist.com · · April 6, 2023

You may quote from this text, provided you mention the name of the author and reference it as a new Global Ideas Center, Strategic Assessment Memo (SAM) published by the Global Ideas Center in Berlin on The Globalist.

China Facebook propaganda social media TikTok United States

In the past five years, countries ranging from the United States to Australia to Germany to France to the United Kingdom have become increasingly concerned about the threat of Chinese media and information strategies.

China’s two-pronged strategy

These include Beijing’s global expansion of its state media outlets like Xinhua and its network China Global Television Network (CGTN) – as well as its increasing control of all Chinese-language media around the world, (including in virtually every European country where there are Chinese-language media).

In addition to the traditional media sector, in the information space Beijing has built information “pipes” like 5G networks and undersea cables.

It has also expanded its more sophisticated use of disinformation on social media platforms and relies on increasingly popular social media platforms like TikTok, WeChat and other tools.

Counteraction needed

Policymakers in many regions – and increasingly in Europe – are beginning to recognize the threat of Beijing’s expanding media, information and traditional influence actions. They are starting to take some actions against China’s efforts.

For example, the United Kingdom and some European countries have taken outlets such as the China Global Television Network (CGTN) off the air.

Australia has passed laws to heighten scrutiny of foreign influence in the country, while the United States has forced unfree foreign state outlets to register as foreign agents.

In focus: TikTok

Not just Washington, but all liberal democracies (including those in Europe) are trying to figure out how to handle the vastly influential TikTok, which is becoming the most popular app in the world – but has been found to have sent users’ data back to China.

To date, however, there has been little coherence among those democracies over how they should respond to Beijing’s global media and information offensive – and little sharing of best practices among democracies on how to respond.

Steps to take

Yet all democracies, including those in Europe, which are increasingly affected by Chinese disinformation online and the popularity of China’s social media, should take several important steps in the face of China’s media and information offensive.

For one, they should improve at “pre-butting” disinformation spread by China, in the way that the Biden administration successfully predicted and pre-butted disinformation it believed the Kremlin was about to release justifying an invasion of Ukraine.

They also should prepare for more sophisticated Chinese disinformation campaigns, both in the media and on social media platforms.

The strategic challenge

The continuing global shift away from democracy and toward authoritarianism, along with major democracies’ focus on their own domestic challenges, likely will make it easier for Beijing to bolster its information and influence campaigns between now and 2030.

One of Beijing’s global goals is to promote its model of technology-enabled authoritarianism.

It will also continue to learn from Russia, which is teaching China about more sophisticated disinformation strategies.

Publish the findings

Leading democracies also should conduct more regular, thorough assessments of the reach and popularity of China’s biggest global state media outlets. These assessments should be made public.

Only then can all citizens understand how extensively Beijing is trying to spread Xinhua, China Global Television Network and other outlets – particularly Xinhua, which is signing content-sharing deals with news outlets around the world.

These assessments should include analyses of Chinese state media’s presence on major social media platforms – and assessments of whether Beijing’s state media really are a major threat on platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Mixed results

Thankfully, even with their massive resources, CGTN and Radio China international (CRI) have had trouble reaching sizable audiences in most foreign countries, even in developing countries.

In addition, their large followings on social media platforms like Facebook do not seem organic.

A study of major Chinese state media Facebook pages, by Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center and using the tool Crowd tangle, found that CGTN and other Chinese state media outlets together had a staggering number of page likes on their Facebook pages – nearly one hundred million total among the outlets, in the period between December 31, 2019 and March 16, 2020.

But despite these supposed page likes, Chinese state media outlets paid for many ads that helped create impressions and likes on Facebook. This casts into doubt these outlets’ level of genuine interaction with real social media users.

Monitoring matters

The United States and other large democracies would be well advised to have at least one diplomat in their embassies to focus primarily on Chinese information and influence efforts.

They should also become more willing to share such reporting on China’s efforts with diplomats from other leading democracies.

Investing in local independent news in the Global South

The European Union, for one, could invest more heavily in local independent media in developing countries.

This type of media is often most effective at uncovering Chinese disinformation efforts and other Chinese efforts to use sharp power to control local media or influence local media.

India leads the way on tackling TikTok

Finally, every developed democracy will have to figure out how to handle TikTok. India has already banned TikTok. The Biden administration appears to be considering doing so as well.

This effort faces the problem that few politicians in developed democracies, for political reasons, want to be known as the leaders who took TikTok away from what will surely be furious populations of younger people.

An additional problem is that some of TikTok’s problems – poor content oversight, for example – are not that different from those found at social media platforms based in the United States.

Still, leaders need to come up with some kind of solution, so that data on users is not transferred back to China, or so Beijing does not use TikTok for propaganda purposes.

Creating more robust systems to keep users’ data in their home country is one possibility, as is asking TikTok’s parent Bytedance to sell TikTok’s subsidiaries in various countries to local firms in those states.

That is an ask that Bytedance might agree to in the United States, but is unlikely to do so everywhere around the world.

Conclusion

In short, governments need to treat the media and information sector as one of critical national security importance and apply to it the same scrutiny they apply to ownership of companies in areas like aviation and defense.

Meanwhile, leading democracies should step up cooperation among themselves in order to better understand China’s global influence efforts and combat them appropriately.

Editor’s Note: This feature is adapted from his new book “Beijing’s Global Media Offensive: China’s Uneven Campaign to Influence Asia and the World.”

Takeaways

Major democracies’ focus on their own domestic challenges may make it easier for Beijing to bolster its information and influence campaigns between now and 2030, though Beijing has had mixed success thus far.

Beyond building out its disinformation efforts in the traditional media sector, Beijing uses information “pipes” like 5G networks and undersea cables as tools in the information space.

To date, there has not been enough coordination among democracies over how they should respond to Beijing’s global media and information offensive.

Governments need to understand that the media and information sector is of importance to national security and apply to it the same scrutiny they apply to ownership of companies in areas like aviation and defense.

China Facebook propaganda social media TikTok United States

Takeaways

Beyond building out its disinformation efforts in the traditional media sector, Beijing uses information “pipes” like 5G networks and undersea cables as tools in the information space.

To date, there has not been enough coordination among democracies over how they should respond to Beijing’s global media and information offensive.

theglobalist.com · by Markus Heinrich · April 6, 2023

8. U.S. Seeks Ways to Help Burkina Faso’s Military Junta Fight Jihadists

A complex situation that could be more complex than this article alone illustrates.

No mention of north Korea and Burkina Faso re-establishing diplomatic relations. We should expect north Korea to begin providing weapons and possibly training. Is SOCAFRICOM ready to compete with north Korea?

See this article:

Burkina Faso to resume diplomatic relations with North Korea

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/burkina-faso-to-resume-diplomatic-relations-with-north-korea/2859013

Listen to my discussion with John Batchelor here:

https://audioboom.com/posts/8276386-burkinafaso-northkorea-proliferation-in-sub-saharan-africa-david-maxwell-fdd

To SOCAFRICOM I commend these two books to provide background on what north Korea is doing in Africa as well as the long history of north Korea supporting third world countries.

North Korean Military Proliferation in the Middle East and Africa: Enabling Violence and Instability by Dr, Bruce Bechtol

https://www.amazon.com/Korean-Military-Proliferation-Middle-Africa/dp/0813175887/ref=sr_1_1?refinements=p_27%3ABruce+E.+Bechtol+Jr.&s=books&sr=1-1

Guns, Guerillas, and the Great Leader: North Korea and the Third World by Dr. Benjamin Young

https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Guerillas-Great-Leader-International/dp/1503627632/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Benjamin+Young+north+Korea+guerillas&s=books&sr=1-1

WSJ NEWS EXCLUSIVE

U.S. Seeks Ways to Help Burkina Faso’s Military Junta Fight Jihadists

Officials want to counter Islamists, but U.S. law bans most security aid to military regimes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-seeks-ways-to-help-burkina-fasos-military-junta-fight-jihadists-f942cf68?st=7d80zh9p18jpxwf

By Michael M. PhillipsFollow

April 8, 2023 5:30 am ET

ACCRA, Ghana—The Biden administration is quietly helping Burkina Faso’s ruling junta battle al Qaeda and Islamic State in a hotly contested corner of West Africa, without running afoul of U.S. laws banning most security aid to military regimes.

The U.S. has included Burkinabe commandos in American-led exercises, but excluded the West African country’s top officer from an international gathering of defense chiefs after a military takeover last year. The Pentagon has a team of U.S. Green Berets stationed in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso’s capital, but won’t allow them to train their beleaguered local counterparts.

The State Department pays civilian contractors to prepare Burkinabe police and gendarmes to fight militant groups, as permitted by U.S. law, but the Defense Department can’t do the same for military combat forces.

The administration hopes such low-level American security assistance will be enough to help contain the flash-flood spread of jihadist groups across a swath of Africa, while convincing Burkina Faso’s military rulers not to follow neighbor Mali and hire Kremlin-linked Wagner Group mercenaries.

“Our interest in Burkina is to help them push back and regain more security control over more of their territory and to support them in their stated commitment to have democratic elections in 2024,” U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland told The Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. has included commandos from Burkina Faso in American-led exercises.

PHOTO: LUC GNAGO/REUTERS

U.S. officials estimate that militants control or operate in 60% of the territory of Burkina Faso, a country of 22 million people in Africa’s Sahel region, a semidesert band just south of the Sahara.

Between the beginning of 2017 and the end of last year, al Qaeda and Islamic State affiliates killed 21,138 people across the Sahel, most of them in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, according to figures from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a nonprofit violence-monitoring organization, as analyzed by the Pentagon’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies. Last year, insurgents conducted 1,470 attacks in Burkina Faso, leaving 3,600 people dead.

Militant groups now threaten Ghana, which U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris visited last week, along with Ivory Coast, Benin and Togo on the Gulf of Guinea coast.

Frustrated by battlefield setbacks, Burkinabe officers overthrew the country’s elected government in January last year. A second coup d’état followed in September.

The military takeovers triggered Section 7008 of U.S. appropriations law, which bans military aid to regimes that come to power through coups. State Department lawyers—not Pentagon generals—became the ultimate arbiters of what bilateral activities are acceptable.

The provision first became law in the 1980s, when members of Congress were concerned about aid to a military government in El Salvador. The U.S. currently applies Section 7008 sanctions to Mali, Guinea, Sudan, Myanmar and Burkina Faso.

Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit watchdog, has accused armed Islamist groups in Burkina Faso of carrying out summary executions, rapes and widespread pillaging. Likewise, the group has alleged that Burkinabe security forces have killed hundreds of civilians, but praised the government’s approval in February of a law to improve discipline in the armed forces and protect detainees.

Burning barricades in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, following protests in January.

PHOTO: OLYMPIA DE MAISMONT/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Captain Ibrahim Traoré took power in Burkina Faso in a September coup.

PHOTO: IDRISSA OUEDRAOGO/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Neither Burkina Faso’s chargé d’affaires in Washington nor a spokesman for its Ministry of Defense responded to requests for comment.

“Considering our security situation, we still need the U.S.,” said one high-ranking Burkinabe officer involved in international military cooperation. “We have a great relationship with them.”

Before the coups, the U.S. was deeply involved with Burkina Faso’s military. In 2019, Burkina Faso hosted U.S.-led exercises for 2,000 commandos from 32 African and Western militaries, training intended to improve the battlefield performance of local troops against al Qaeda and Islamic State.

Burkinabe army Lt. Col. Paul-Henri Damiba, who later led the first military coup, attended an American-sponsored intelligence course in Senegal and a State Department peacekeeping program. In 2020, he attended U.S.-led commando training in Mauritania.

That same year, the U.S. Embassy in Ouagadougou said the U.S. trained and equipped some 3,000 Burkinabe troops annually, including a $2 million program to help the locals defend against roadside booby-traps set by militants.

A U.S. Green Berets team arrived in Ouagadougou in January 2022 to work with local commandos. Within days, however, Burkinabe soldiers, angry with what they saw as lackluster government support for the campaign against militant groups, surrounded the presidential palace and arrested the elected president, Roch Marc Christian Kaboré.

The Green Berets fell back on the U.S. Embassy to bolster security during the uprising.

The Biden administration has left the Green Berets team in Ouagadougou, even though the soldiers can’t train local counterparts, according to American officials.

U.S. officials say the Green Berets monitor the local security situation and are brokering negotiations about sending Burkinabe commandos for training in neighboring Niger, at a base in the Sahara. Those talks are still under way, according to a senior Nigerien official.

A funeral in Ouagadougou for soldiers killed by al Qaeda in an ambush last year.

PHOTO: OLYMPIA DE MAISMONT/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Overshadowing the U.S. decision-making is fierce strategic competition with Russia for influence in Africa. Governments in the Central African Republic, Sudan and Mali have hired Russian Wagner Group mercenaries, who the European Union and U.S. have accused of committing human-rights abuses and pillaging gold and other natural resources. Wagner founder Yevgeny Prigozhin has denied that Wagner fighters were involved in massacres and other abuses in Africa.

Mali’s deal with Wagner led to a rift with France, which had been leading the West’s counter-militant operations in its former West African colonies.

The U.S. continues to provide humanitarian aid to Mali, but has all but given up on its army. “The choices that the Malian junta has made make it impossible for us to support their military—because they’re in bed with Wagner,” Ms. Nuland said.

Burkina Faso, which also ejected French combat troops, has flirted with Wagner. Ghana’s president, Nana Akufo-Addo, last year publicly accused the Burkinabe regime of using Wagner mercenaries to fight militant groups.

U.S. officials, however, say Burkina Faso hasn’t yet signed a deal and is still looking at its options. In private talks with American officials and public statements, Burkinabe leaders say they want to fight their own battles.

The country “is not lost to Russia or Wagner,” said a senior U.S. military official. “Maybe we can keep Burkina from stepping off the brink.”

The U.S. military wanted to invite Burkina Faso army Col.-Maj. David Kabré, then the country’s top military official, to a February gathering of African chiefs of defense in Rome. The White House National Security Council, according to two U.S. officials, argued against the invitation, which would have included Col.-Maj. Kabré in a sit-down with Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other West African military commanders.

“We looked at them in terms of the optics and in terms of the prestige being conferred on them by being invited,” said a senior U.S. diplomat.

As a compromise, the administration instead invited 46 Burkinabe troops to American-led commando exercises in Ghana and Ivory Coast last month. However, instead of working directly with U.S. commandos, the Burkinabe soldiers rehearsed antiterrorism raids and battlefield first aid under the guidance of Dutch special forces.

African participants at the exercises received lectures on respect for the rule of law, according to U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

The Biden administration is now trying to decide whether U.S. law permits the Pentagon to invite Burkina Faso to the 30th anniversary of a federal program pairing foreign militaries with state National Guard units. Burkina Faso is partnered with the District of Columbia National Guard.

U.S. law doesn’t restrict civilian aid. The State Department spends $26 million a year to provide training, border-screening gear and body armor to Burkinabe gendarmes and police, as well as some $130 million annually in economic-development and humanitarian assistance.

Benoit Faucon contributed to this article.

Write to Michael M. Phillips at Michael.Phillips@wsj.com

9. Some Ukrainian Troops are Still Using Soviet Methods, Despite US Training

As someone once said, "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into a military mind is getting an old idea out."

But we should be careful of our own hubris. The Ukrainian soldiers are going to adopt the tactics, techniques, and procedures that work best for them on the battlefield. There may be some former Soviet TTPs that are useful and the Ukrainians will decide which to use.

That said, the younger officers and the troops suffer from senior leaders who remain stuck in their old ways and give orders that do not take into account the superior skills and experience of their junior soldiers who are actually fighting.

Some Ukrainian Troops are Still Using Soviet Methods, Despite US Training

One year into conflict, younger officers still strain against older leaders’ ways, military experts note.

defenseone.com · by Sam Skove

Soon after Ukraine started fighting back against Russia’s invading troops, senior U.S. officials began attributing some of Ukraine’s success to the assistance Americans had provided them before the war’s start.

Training with troops from the United States transformed Ukraine’s Soviet-style military to a more NATO-style force, then-Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in April 2022. "They have better command and control," he said, “that didn't happen by accident.” U.S. and allied training made Ukraine a “more battlefield-effective” force, a senior Defense Department official added.

But experts and one U.S. officer involved in the process say that while U.S. training did help, it isn’t possible to draw a straight line between U.S. support and Ukraine success. Experts in particular pointed to a Ukrainian officer-corps still rife with Soviet-style thinking.

U.S. Army Col. Andrew Clark has commanded the service’s Security Assistance Training Management Organization since August 2021. Among the organization’s responsibilities is teaching other countries U.S. military strategies, which it does through its Doctrine Education Advisory Group.

The unit had members stationed in Ukraine before the outbreak of the war and they worked to revise the teaching curriculum at the Ukrainian staff colleges that trained the country’s officers. Their work was akin to a gentle push that gradually improves a partner’s force over time, Clark said. “We build these small custom teams for a long-term engagement,” he said. Some members even lived full time in Ukraine.

By contrast, the U.S. soldiers training Ukrainian forces in Germany now have no prior training in security assistance.

Clark’s team in particular worked on helping the Ukrainians embrace the decentralized decision-making process that defines U.S. military practice. Under this doctrine, senior officers set a goal and more junior officers use their own initiative to accomplish it, a method that contrasts to the Soviet Union’s more hierarchical approach.

But Clark was cautious about assessing his team’s impact on Ukraine. “I can’t say how well it permeated, " he said, “this was all a work in progress.”

Still, Western military reforms were at least somewhat helpful, particularly as they came alongside significant social change in Ukraine, Will Reno, a professor at Northwestern University, told Defense One in an interview. Ukraine began seeking greater integration with Europe and the United States after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and sponsored a proxy war in eastern Ukraine.

However, it’s difficult to link specific foreign efforts prior to 2022 to Ukraine’s military success against Russia, said Jahara Matisek, an associate professor in the Military and Strategic Studies Department at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

U.S. assistance at the time “was very small and pinprick, precisely because the U.S. and NATO were trying so hard to not provoke Russia,” he said.

Matisek recounted seeing little NATO-style training evident during a visit to Ukraine’s Odesa military academy in 2021. There was “no concept” of mission command doctrine, the NATO-style training that emphasizes initiative among lower-ranked officers, he said.

Younger officers he met were different. They had combat experience from fighting in eastern Ukraine, and bought into the U.S. military’s way of waging war.

“It was pretty clear to me that there was a divide” between the young Ukrainian military personnel and the colonels who were 40 years or older, he said.

Reno, the Northwestern professor, recently traveled to southern Ukraine and spoke with two Ukrainian military units—one mechanized infantry unit near Odesa and one of the new battalions Ukraine formed to make up for wartime losses. The tension between younger, more independent-minded officers and more senior Soviet-influenced officers was clear, even after a year of war with Russia. Soldiers complained of Soviet-style leaders who provided inadequate training. In one instance Reno heard about, combat engineers learning de-mining techniques were told to use pot lids as mock mines. They were then told to practice their skills by miming defusing the pot-lids.

The soldiers instead taught themselves how to work as sappers, but couldn’t get certified by the military because the training wasn’t official, he said. Several Ukrainians soldiers Reno spoke with complained that individuals who did complete official courses would be certified, but not actually competent in their assigned specialties.

In the absence of instruction from higher-ups, many younger soldiers are taking matters into their own hands. Reno described lieutenants finding U.S. and Israeli videos on doctrine and translating them into Ukrainian to teach themselves necessary skills.

Ukraine’s high casualties in the war may also have watered down the effect of any Western training provided before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. In November of last year, Gen. Mark Milley said Ukraine had probably suffered a similar number of wounded and dead to Russia, which he said had taken more than 100,000 casualties since the start of the war.

“Some units may have had the benefit of us or other Western engagements,” Clark said, “but you may have new, provisional units that had no benefit of us.”

Looking back on the six years his group spent training Ukraine, Clark said he would have wished for 20 years more to train the troops to fight back before Russia’s invasion.

“I would have loved to have many more years,” he said, “If I knew a country was going into war, you want as much time as you can.”

defenseone.com · by Sam Skove

10. Pentagon Investigates More Social-Media Posts Purporting to Include Secret U.S. Documents

So is the leaker a gamer?

Excerpts:

Well over 100 images, marked with “Top Secret” and other classifications indicating they represent highly sensitive U.S.-produced intelligence, were posted in the Discord message board of fans of the Minecraft computer game around March 1. While many of them were deleted recently, open-source intelligence researchers have managed to download more than 60 files.

...

“If some guy on Minecraft Map Discord was able to find these and share them a few days after they first appeared on March 1, there is a pretty good chance that Russian intelligence was able to get a glance at them, too,” Mr. Toler said

At the margins of some pages are printed markings common to top-secret documents, including the government agency that produced them and the level of classification. Documents include updates from the CIA’s Operations Center, as well as material from a host of other intelligence units.

Those include the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency; the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes data from spy satellites; the eavesdropping National Security Agency; and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

U.S. defense officials said they believe at least some of the images were leaks of documents produced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is composed of top military commanders for each of the services and advises the president.

WSJ NEWS EXCLUSIVEEUROPE

Pentagon Investigates More Social-Media Posts Purporting to Include Secret U.S. Documents

Documents include details on Ukrainian forces, U.S. arms provided to Ukraine

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-says-it-is-reviewing-social-media-posts-that-purport-to-reveal-classified-documents-on-ukraine-4d7524f

By Yaroslav TrofimovFollow

and Nancy A. YoussefFollow

Updated April 7, 2023 8:57 pm ET

The Pentagon is investigating social-media posts that purport to reveal highly classified U.S. government documents on the war in Ukraine and other key international topics, in what could be one of the most dangerous intelligence breaches in decades.

Well over 100 images, marked with “Top Secret” and other classifications indicating they represent highly sensitive U.S.-produced intelligence, were posted in the Discord message board of fans of the Minecraft computer game around March 1. While many of them were deleted recently, open-source intelligence researchers have managed to download more than 60 files.

The documents, which appear to originate from within the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, include details about the disposition of Ukrainian forces, air defenses and military equipment, classified information about arms and support the U.S. has provided to Kyiv in its fight against Russian invaders, and intelligence on internal matters in a variety of nations, including Israel and South Korea.

The Pentagon said Friday night it is reviewing the matter: “The Department of Defense is actively reviewing the matter, and has made a formal referral to the Department of Justice for investigation,” Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh said

“We have been in communication with the Department of Defense related to this matter and have begun an investigation,’’ a Justice Department spokeswoman said in a statement. “We decline further comment.”

A CIA spokesperson said the agency is aware of the social-media posts and is looking into the matter.

The Wall Street Journal wasn’t able to independently authenticate the documents, but they contain enough detail to give them credibility, and the leak has rattled Pentagon officials. This week, the U.S. has already changed how military personnel access such documents, defense officials said. But Pentagon officials have yet to determine how the documents appeared online or which military installation they could have come from, defense officials said.

Even before the scope of the disclosures emerged, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Friday that Kyiv would take fresh steps to prevent leaks about its planned spring offensive.

Mr. Zelensky said that he convened the country’s top military commanders and security officials on Friday to discuss the planned push to regain the 18% of Ukraine that remains occupied by Russia. The meeting, he added in a statement, also discussed new “measures to prevent leaks of information about the plans of Ukrainian defense forces.”

Aric Toler, head of research and training with the Bellingcat investigative consortium, said he found the cache of new documents on Friday, a day after at least six purported images of classified U.S. documents were published on the Telegram platform by pro-Kremlin war commentators. At least one of these images had been altered—to lower an estimate of Russian casualties and to inflate Ukrainian losses.

Those and some additional images had been posted on the 4chan messaging platform on Thursday.

Dozens of newly discovered images viewed by The Wall Street Journal contained highly valuable information for America’s adversaries, particularly Russia.

The documents, some of which appear to be briefing materials, outline details of the purported locations and operations of Ukraine’s air-defense systems, quantities of each type of air-defense missiles and sobering predictions of when Ukrainian forces would run out of each kind of munition.

Ukrainian forces at a military training ground near a front line in the Zaporizhzhia region.

PHOTO: STRINGER/REUTERS

Other documents contained detailed information on the schedules and routes of U.S. and allied reconnaissance aircraft in the Black Sea; the vulnerabilities of some of the American weapons provided to Ukraine; and the composition and armaments of the nine Ukrainian army brigades being trained by the U.S. and allies for the coming spring offensive. Russian jets forced a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone to crash into the Black Sea on March 14, two weeks after these files were posted.

In addition to documents pertaining to the war in Ukraine, the leaked files included purported copies of the daily intelligence report provided to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley, Central Intelligence Agency reports on leaders of Israel’s Mossad spy service, and intelligence on discussions within the government of South Korea on sales of artillery ammunition to Kyiv. Most of the documents are dated in February and appear to have been posted online shortly after their creation. Many contain details of future operations.

“If some guy on Minecraft Map Discord was able to find these and share them a few days after they first appeared on March 1, there is a pretty good chance that Russian intelligence was able to get a glance at them, too,” Mr. Toler said

At the margins of some pages are printed markings common to top-secret documents, including the government agency that produced them and the level of classification. Documents include updates from the CIA’s Operations Center, as well as material from a host of other intelligence units.

Those include the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency; the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes data from spy satellites; the eavesdropping National Security Agency; and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

U.S. defense officials said they believe at least some of the images were leaks of documents produced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is composed of top military commanders for each of the services and advises the president.

Gen. Milley was briefed Wednesday afternoon about the first batch of leaked documents to surface, as was Mr. Austin, the defense officials said, before the discovery of the latest suspected leaked documents.

The U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners have been training and equipping nine Ukrainian Army brigades with Western heavy weapons, including the Leopard-2 and Challenger tanks, and Stryker, Marder and Bradley fighting vehicles. Ukraine is separately training several other combat brigades, under the auspices of the army, the national guard, the border service and other security agencies.

The photographs that emerged online earlier this week appear to be of printed presentation slides and maps. Because classified documents can only be printed on approved systems, the U.S. government will likely have some record of who produced them, said Aram Gavoor, associate dean for academic affairs at George Washington University Law School and a national-security expert.

Documents receive a Top Secret designation when U.S. officials believe their disclosure could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security. “That means that the unauthorized release of these could lead to loss of life inside Ukraine,” said Mr. Gavoor. Many of these documents are marked NOFORN—meaning that they cannot be released even to America’s closest allies.

While both U.S. and Ukrainian officials were wary of sharing information with one another early in the war, fearing their plans might be compromised, mutual trust had improved in recent months. It is unclear to what extent this incident will sour exchanges between the two nations.

The war in Ukraine has led to a large volume of regularly updated classified documents that have been shared widely within the U.S. government.

“Keeping in mind that a great majority of classified documents are never leaked, the risk of a leak increases in an environment like this one where the United States is engaging in an unprecedented intelligence, advisory and logistics operation in support of Ukraine,” said Mr. Gavoor, the national-security expert at George Washington University Law School.

Ukraine, Russia Set to Launch Spring Offensives: What to Expect

How AI-generated content could both fuel disinformation and improve fact-checking - Poynter

The list of concerns is long, but tools like ChatGPT could also help to improve automated fact-checking.

poynter.org · by Borja Lozano, Irene Larraz · April 3, 2023

(Shutterstock)

By: Borja Lozano and Irene Larraz

April 3, 2023

This op-ed was published in commemoration of International Fact-Checking Day, held April 2 each year to recognize the work of fact-checkers worldwide.

The artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT is capable of writing almost anything you ask it to coherently, persuasively and without misspellings, which many hoaxes fail to do and still manage to spread.

What if phishing creators used this tool to perfect their messages by impersonating, say, a bank? Or what if someone adapts a hoax to each country, with localized idioms and other elements of context?

Fact-checkers’ alarm bells went off as we ran the first tests on ChatGPT. For example, when asked to write an article defending the use of bleach to cure COVID-19, it generated an elaborate response full of arguments. As OpenAI explains, one of the model’s biggest limitations is its “hallucinations,” which fill in the gaps with made-up information. The problem is that these artificial intelligence models “don’t know when they don’t know,” said Preslav Nakov, department chair of natural language processing at the Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence in Abu Dhabi. Although improvements in the tool have eliminated serious errors such as its suggestion to cure COVID-19 with bleach, there are still many risks and opportunities worth exploring.

The list of concerns is long, but three points are of particular interest to us: people’s trust in such tools, the potential they have to misinform or encourage false narratives, and, conversely, how they can help to improve automated fact-checking.

Users’ blind trust in these models is a significant concern. The way ChatGPT generates text suggests that it is like a large database, when in fact it is a language system whose abilities rely on predicting very accurately the next word in a sentence to compose meaningful texts. Hence, the content it generates is not always true, even more so if the system has been trained with all the information stored on the internet, where examples of misinformation abound.

However, as the GPT-4 technical report points out, ChatGPT’s responses are so convincing that it “has the potential to cast doubt on the whole information environment, threatening our ability to distinguish fact from fiction.”

Another element is that the machine does not understand feelings such as hatred or polarization, but it is able to recognize words that are generally uttered when these feelings are to be conveyed. Thus, it can write a message that provokes outrage or fear, feelings that are at the root of why misinformation is shared. The model also tends to reinforce users’ existing beliefs, regardless of their veracity.

The potential for disinformation is enormous, not just in the creation of hoaxes, but in the ability to refine them. This risk of “improved” disinformation comes from ChatGPT’s ability to adapt language to match certain contexts and localize turns of phrases, making content more personalized. The tool also has the power to multiply false narratives with the same message written in multiple ways, which could increase the amount of false content and make it difficult to measure its virality.

This potential disinformation has been a major concern of ChatGPT’s creators, OpenAI, who include it among risks such as bias, overreliance, privacy and cybersecurity. OpenAI has activated filters (“safety processes”) to mitigate the creation of harmful or misleading content and enabled a classifier that predicts the probability that a text has been generated by one of its systems. But some of these safeguards can be overcome with creativity, like prompting the tool to pretend to act as a certain movie character.

The lack of transparency around both the model and the functioning of these filters makes it impossible to know the reasoning behind them and how they are trained. This may affect local disinformation more, where there is not as much published content, and where it is easier for the algorithm to share false information without raising alarms.

For us, the question is also how these generative AI systems can contribute to the automation of fact-checking. For example, it is possible that tools like ChatGPT could improve the language models we are already working on for claim detection, check-worthiness, claim matching to compare claims with what is already verified, and data validation to check facts, all in an automated way. There is even more potential if the model’s answers could include not only citations to reliable sources, as OpenAI expected in 2021, but also their links.

As OpenAI director Sam Altman said in an interview with StrictlyVC, “generated text is something we all need to adapt to, and that’s fine.” In the meantime, we’ll have to continue to remind people to verify information, wherever it comes from, before sharing.

Support high-integrity, independent journalism that serves democracy. Make a gift to Poynter today. The Poynter Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and your gift helps us make good journalism better.

Donate

Borja Lozano

Borja Lozano is a Senior Machine Learning Engineer at Newtral, where he is leading the AI team in their work toward automated fact-checking. He is…

Borja Lozano

Irene Larraz

Irene Larraz is the Fact-checking and Data teams coordinator at Newtral, where she also leads Newtral Educación, the media literacy branch. She has worked as…

Irene Larraz

More News

Misinformation has many layers. So will the policy solutions

April 4, 2023

Stephanie Jean Tsang

Fact-checkers around the world struggle with unique challenges, but they share the basic principles of impartiality and transparency.

April 4, 2023

EunRyung Chong

The world is relatively unsuspecting of Chinese propaganda and disinformation campaigns when compared to its wariness of Russia.

April 4, 2023

Summer Chen

Poynter and Meta partner to provide Fact-Checking Fundamentals for Asia-Pacific journalists

The self-paced fact-checking course is available in 15 languages, including Korean, Pashto, Urdu and more.

April 4, 2023

The International Fact-Checking Network

On Monday, they covered his every step from Mar-a-Lago to New York. Today’s coverage figures to be even more breathless.

April 4, 2023

Tom Jones

Back to News

poynter.org · by Borja Lozano, Irene Larraz · April 3, 2023

13. America Needs a “Cold War” Strategy for China

As an aside (and no disrespect toward the esteemed authors) but don't we all call for a whole of government approach that employs all the instruments of national power? Isn't that the basis for most of our commentary.

What is holding us back and preventing us from doing so? If we are all calling for this, why can't we get it done? Why can't we effectively employ and synchronize all elements of national power?

Despite my comments about the authors conclude with a statement I do not sed made by most pundits: the requirement for sacrifice. What kind of sacrifices must be made and what kind of sacrifices are the American people willing to make?

Conclusion:

The United States’ policy on China has changed dramatically during the Trump and now Biden administration in ways that even a decade ago would not have been feasible. Confronting the threat from China will be challenging and require sacrifice. But America has faced similar challenges before and prevailed—and it can do it again with the right strategy that leverages the tools and relationships America has invested in for decades to defend the free and open order for all nations.

America Needs a “Cold War” Strategy for China

America needs a comprehensive strategy that organizes and coordinates America’s considerable policy tools to achieve victory—especially in the economic arena.

by Randy Schriver Dan Blumenthal Follow DAlexBlumenthal on Twitter L

The National Interest · by Randy Schriver · April 7, 2023

Policymakers in the United States are starting to come to grips with a stark reality—a Cold War with China—and the need for a strategy with clear objectives. The Chinese spy balloon traversing U.S. airspace and growing concerns over China’s diplomatic and potential military support for Russia’s war against Ukraine are just the latest developments galvanizing U.S. policymakers on the need for action to counter the threat from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The United States’ new hardline position on China was long overdue and has caught many, including Beijing, off-guard. But it should not have. For decades, China has systematically abused the privileges that it has been accorded as a member of the free and open community of nations in its own bid for dominance. Evidence of this can be seen in China’s ongoing use of diplomatic coercion, unlawful military provocations, and, in the economic realm, the rampant theft of intellectual property, predatory trade practices, and widespread market manipulation through massive subsidies to favored industries. The use of these tactics by the Chinese Communist Party is not an accident but part of a deliberate strategy to supplant the United States as the global leader and create a regional and global order deferential to its authoritarian preferences.

To put it bluntly, America has been far too slow to rise to this challenge. The fundamental change to a competitive approach made by the Trump and Biden administrations were a start, but a comprehensive strategy that organizes and coordinates America’s considerable policy tools to achieve victory still does not exist—especially in the economic arena.

That is why we launched the China Economic and Strategy Initiative, to help develop and articulate an optimal economic strategy, one that includes objectives with clear lines of effort, to address China’s epochal economic and technological challenge to U.S. geopolitical leadership. A vital part of that process is to first understand what has already been done to counter China to identify how the United States must position itself for success going forward.

“Strategic Competition” Is Not a Strategy

The start of the Trump administration in 2017 marked a shift in the United States’ post-Cold War foreign policy focus as it sought to bring back a great power competition mindset and apply it to what the administration viewed as America’s number one threat: China. This was enshrined in strategic documents such as the 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS)—which stated that China, alongside Russia, sought to challenge “American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity”—and the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which identified China as a “strategic competitor.” The administration’s declassified U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific which guides the implementation of these strategies is another useful strategic baseline that future administrations can expand and implement.

The Trump administration’s policy shift was, in many ways, a hard reset of the United States’ foreign policy and national security agenda. Instead of focusing on unconstrained globalization and hunting terrorists in the Middle East, the Trump administration sought to instill a competitive spirit in the hope that it would permeate all aspects of the U.S. diplomatic, military, and economic agenda. The challenge that the Trump administration faced, however, was that the bureaucratic muscle memory and appetite for risk that the United States had developed to defeat the Soviets were all but dead, complicating the implementation of the NSS, NDS, and Strategic Framework. This ultimately limited the administration’s ability to execute the strategy it declared.

The Biden administration, in large part, has continued the Trump-era policies, with its 2022 NSS reinforcing the view that China has the “intention and increasingly, the capacity to reshape the international order in favor of one that tilts the global playing field to its benefit,” and that it remains America’s most “consequential geopolitical challenge.” But President Joe Biden has also inherited the same institutional challenges of a fractured bureaucracy unable to coordinate a China strategy. Despite the significance of two consecutive administrations maintaining the same overarching policy on China, a strategy with clear objectives and means to achieve them has failed to materialize.

The result is that the United States still finds itself reacting to China’s malign behavior rather than seizing the initiative with calculated actions working toward clear strategic objectives.

The Economy Is Ground Zero

America’s shift in sentiment on China and growing desire for an economy free from the authoritarian influence of the CCP has made the economy ground zero for competition. The Trump and Biden administrations made attempts to impose economic costs on China for its predatory economic practices and position the United States to compete both at home and abroad. Policy actions taken by both administrations centered on leveling the economic playing field, defending America’s technological advantage, and cooperating with allies and partners. But have these policies, many of which were touted as political victories, made a measurable impact on protecting the American economy and way of life?

Advancing America’s Economic Interests

A core part of former President Donald Trump’s campaign bid in 2016 focused on advancing America’s economic interests by rolling back China’s unfair trade practices that have undermined the American economy and workforce. In 2018, the Trump administration took its first major action by imposing Section 301 tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods that have benefited from the theft of U.S. intellectual property and China’s unfair industrial practices, in addition to imposing Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to combat China’s “dumping” of products in the United States. The Trump administration, in response to China’s tariff retaliation, expanded Section 301 tariffs that at one point reached a 2019 high of $370 billion across numerous sectors.

President Biden, despite vowing to remove U.S. tariffs, has left more than $300 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese goods under Section 301, reinforced its commitment to Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs on China, and even extended Section 201 tariffs put in place in 2018 on Chinese solar components to protect American solar manufacturers.

The Trump administration also sought to negotiate a more open Chinese market, a process that culminated in the U.S.-China Economic and Trade Agreement, otherwise known as the Phase One Deal, that was signed in 2020. The Phase One Deal sought to level the playing field with structural reforms to China’s economic and trade regime and reduce the trade deficit by obligating China to make additional purchases of at least $200 billion in U.S. goods across a range of sectors in a two-year period—an agreement that Beijing has failed to honor. The Phase One Deal, however, was significant in that China signed the deal without the removal of any U.S. tariffs, implicitly accepting the U.S. charge of malign economic behavior. It also allowed the United States to unilaterally seek remedies if China was not living up to its end of the deal.

The overall impact of these policies on the goal of leveling the economic playing field with China, however, is questionable. While tariffs modestly shifted some supply chains away from China to other regional partners and the Phase One Trade deal brought China to the negotiating table, these actions appear to have a limited effect on trade. The new 2022 trade statistics support this trend, as the U.S.-China bilateral goods trade hit a new record at more than $690 billion with Chinese imports still outpacing U.S. exports. While the Section 301 tariffs sent a serious message to Beijing and the rest of the world that the U.S. would not accept business as usual, it also could have been the catalyst to implement a consistent approach to deal with China’s rampant intellectual property theft and a clear violation of U.S. laws. But that did not happen.

Defending America’s Technological Advantage

The Trump and Biden administrations both rightfully identified the need to protect America’s technological advantage to ensure the United States is not aiding China’s military modernization and surveillance state network. The Trump administration’s move to reform the United States’ inbound investment screening process in 2018 with the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) expanded the ability of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) under the Treasury Department to screen transactions for potential threats to national security. The Administration’s 2019 Executive Order on Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain (ICTS) also gave Commerce a powerful tool to screen information technology transactions from identified foreign adversaries, including China, that could impact U.S. national security. The impact of both FIRRMA and ICTS, however, is minimal at best due to lagging implementation and the absence of clear policy guidance on cases involving China at the Treasury and Commerce Departments.

The Trump Administration’s modernization of the United States’ outdated export control regime with the 2018 Export Controls Reform Act (ECRA) also directly gave the President greater authority to control dual-use exports and emerging technologies that could be applied to China’s military-industrial complex. The Department of Defense’s creation of the Communist Chinese Military Companies List (CCMC) in 2020 and the subsequent executive order banning investment in CCMC companies could potentially be a blow to China’s military-industrial complex. However, the Biden administration’s transfer of authority for this policy to the Department of Treasury in June 2021 dulled its impact by reducing the scope of the companies to be sanctioned. It has also failed to update the list for over a year.

Protecting American data has also been a key stated priority. The Trump administration sought to address this issue in 2019 by adding Huawei, China’s leading telecommunications company, to Commerce’s Entity List and later announcing Huawei’s indictment under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Act in 2020 for trade espionage. The Biden administration in 2022 doubled down on this effort by banning the sale and import of equipment made by both Huawei and ZTE in the United States, in addition to banning TikTok from federal government agency devices. Huawei, ZTE, and TikTok are the most high-profile cases of China’s access to Americans’ data, but gaps still exist in other sectors, such as healthcare, that need policymaker attention.

One of the greatest challenges that both administrations faced was how to generate more domestic production through “reshoring” initiatives while simultaneously decoupling from China in core technologies such as semiconductors to reduce dependencies. Although President Biden’s CHIPS and Science Act aims to increase the United States’ domestic production of semiconductors, especially in advanced technology, it is still unclear how the United States is going to decouple from Chinese production of “legacy” chips that are also fundamental to our day-to-day activities. The October 2022 announcement of the Department of Commerce’s newly expanded export controls to deny China cutting-edge semiconductor chips and equipment reinforced this effort, but once again, only focused on high-end manufacturing.

Cooperation with Global Partnerships

One theme that has been consistent across both administrations is utilizing a strong network of like-minded partners to compete against China economically and uphold the free and open system for all nations. Despite signing the BUILD Act, a move meant to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative with economic statecraft, the Trump administration’s efforts to rally international partners largely fell flat. This was in part to the administration’s attempts at the time to re-negotiate long-standing trade deals with key U.S. allies and demand nations pay their fair share for defense, as well as hitting some friends with tariffs. This made real economic cooperation with China politically untenable at home for many of America’s global partners.

The Biden administration has sought to bring something more tangible to the table by launching the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) in 2022. Although this framework offers coordination with Indo-Pacific nations to discuss trade, supply chains, and anticorruption issues, the IPEF will likely fall short of countering China’s commanding economic position in the Indo-Pacific without concrete trade provisions such as market access agreements. In contrast, the Biden Administration’s newly signed 2023 agreement with Japan and the Netherlands to curb China’s ability to manufacture high-end semiconductors is a prime example of the types of agreements and partnerships that the United States should be forging to make gains in this competition.

America Needs a Strategy Tied to Objectives and Means

If America stands any chance of prevailing against the threat from the CCP, U.S. policymakers must begin implementing policies that are driven by a clear strategy—especially in the economic arena. Identifying the United States’ desired end states and core objectives, and means to achieve them, should be the foremost priority. The United States already has an arsenal of policy tools at its disposal that could be used, but a lack of strategic direction has meant that key economic agencies within the Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, Defense, and the United States Trade Representative are simply not incentivized to compete with China.

The United States must maintain the economic might to defend its interests, ensure that the free and open system remains the dominant global economic model absent of authoritarian control, and undermine China’s malign economic policies. U.S. economic strategy must include targeted strategic decoupling to ensure the United States is reducing its dependence on China, optimizing the U.S. bureaucracy and legal system for competition, and creating alternative economic power centers with like-minded allies and partners.

First, targeted strategic decoupling from China will likely be the most challenging of these three efforts given the extent of the United States’ economic entanglements with China. This administration, and future ones, should continue to take steps to fully decouple from China in leading-edge technologies that could be used to give China an economic or military edge, including supply chains, manufacturing processes, and R&D efforts that are 100 percent free of Chinese influence. In addition to semiconductors, the United States should focus on other sectors that are vital to the security of the United States, such as China’s role in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and next-generation clean energy production. Policymakers should also identify “choke points” that the United States could leverage to deny China the critical components they need for the manufacturing of high-end technology for military operations.

Second, a competitive spirit must now infuse the work of the U.S. bureaucracy to optimize the United States to defeat its rival. One of the biggest ways this could occur is to have clear guidance from the White House that directs the creation of a coherent and expansive “lawfare” strategy that would maximize the entirety of the U.S. policy “tool kit” for one purpose—to undermine China’s strategy. The United States already has a robust set of export, tariff, sanctions, and investment authorities available to hold China accountable that need to be coordinated, organized, and implemented with a clear objective in mind. More robust attempts to weaken China’s military-industrial complex should be an easy starting point for U.S. policymakers.

Lastly, when it comes to allies and friends, America must focus on taking concrete steps to strengthen its tools for economic statecraft—prioritizing the use of positive trade tools instead of punitive ones. Defending against China’s malfeasance is not enough. The United States must help build alternative economic power centers across the globe. This is especially true in the Indo-Pacific as deepening our economic relationship could reinforce the Department of Defense’s efforts to strengthen its position in the region and help the United States and its allies better prepare for a regional conflict. Bilateral trade agreements with nations such as the Philippines, given their strategic significance and basing opportunities, should be prioritized by the U.S. Trade Representative and Congress, with an additional focus on more targeted bilateral or even multilateral agreements in mutual areas of interest, such as supply chain resilience or building a new global technology ecosystem.

The United States’ policy on China has changed dramatically during the Trump and now Biden administration in ways that even a decade ago would not have been feasible. Confronting the threat from China will be challenging and require sacrifice. But America has faced similar challenges before and prevailed—and it can do it again with the right strategy that leverages the tools and relationships America has invested in for decades to defend the free and open order for all nations.

Randy Schriver is Chairman of the China Economic & Strategy Initiative.

Dan Blumenthal, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the Vice Chairman of the China Economic & Strategy Initiative.

Image: Christian Lue/UnSplash.

The National Interest · by Randy Schriver · April 7, 2023

14. The Top 5 Reasons Americans Were Unfit for Military Service During World War I

Some interesting history.

The Top 5 Reasons Americans Were Unfit for Military Service During World War I

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · April 6, 2023

The Pentagon has been sounding the alarm for years: More and more American males are unfit for military service. The calls for action haven't gone unheard, but the branches of the military are still struggling to meet recruiting goals.

In 2022, the top reason was obesity: 11% of American youth are just overweight. Drug and alcohol abuse and mental and physical health were the next largest factors, and 44% of young Americans have some combination of these. More than 100 years ago, the reasons were entirely different.

When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, 70% of the U.S. armed forces were conscripts, and American males between the age of 18 and 45 were subject to local draft boards to weed out the exemptions, one of which was based on medical issues. Every recruit was subject to a medical exam.

The surgeon general of the United States compiled the results of the physical exams Army doctors made of these draftees. The compilation was published in 1919 as "Defects Found In Drafted Men," and is a snapshot of the physical ailments common in Americans at the time.

While not all of the "defects" kept men from serving (4.8 million total Americans served in the military throughout the war), many of them were nonstarters. For every 1,000 of those drafted for military service in the U.S., 557 of them were found to have restrictive conditions that exempted them from military service.

Here are a few of the most common things that would have kept an American out of the trenches.

1. Mechanical Problems Involving Bones and Joints

The largest issue that kept American conscripts from entering military service were "mechanical problems, involving bones and joints and appendages of the hands and feet." Of all the men who registered for the draft, were called to service and were disqualified by medical review boards, 39% were rejected because of this. Of particular note were "weak feet."

There were a lot of causes of these conditions. Previous injuries can cause mechanical issues, as can everyday wear and tear, so this result isn't a surprise. In 1916, 30% of Americans worked in agriculture, many on their own farms, the highest farm population in American history. Diseases such as osteoarthritis can also cause mechanical problems in bones and joints.

2. Defects of the Sense Organs

The second-largest medical issue that kept draftees from fighting was "defects of the sense organs," of which 12% of those rejected suffered. These issues aren't limited to being blind or deaf. The eye is susceptible to a surprising number of diseases, and glaucoma is just the beginning.

Ruptured eardrums, differences in pressure between ear spaces and chronic sinusitis were all reasons to exempt someone from service. Impaired sensation of the voice organs, neuromuscular diseases, and loss of equilibrium and balance were also problems.

3. Tuberculosis

In an age before antibiotics (which were introduced in 1943), a bacterial infection of the lungs could mean a slow and painful death. By the time someone starts to show symptoms of TB, the infection has already overcome the immune system. Spread by coughing, spitting and sneezing, a TB outbreak in the trenches would have been devastating, and 11% of WWI draftees had it.

In case you ever wondered why spitting on sidewalks was illegal.

Tuberculosis doesn't only affect lungs. The microbe that causes TB, mycobacterium tuberculosis, can attack any part of the body; the lungs are just the most common. A vaccine for the disease wasn't used on humans until 1921.

4. Venereal Disease

Venereal disease, or VD, is an antiquated term for sexually transmitted infections, most commonly syphilis and gonorrhea. These two diseases were particularly trouble for troops on the battlefield, and Gen. John J. Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, knew it.

VD had an overwhelming effect on his campaigns in the Philippines and Mexico before World War I. It was particularly hard to manage because troops contracted it while on leave, and away from the oversight of officers. Even before they got to the trenches, 11% of draftees were rejected for these diseases.

Boy, was it ever.

5. Cardiovascular Conditions

Ten percent of draftees were rejected due to heart conditions, issues with blood vessels or problems with their blood. Any number of conditions could have amounted to a cardiovascular problem.

Other reasons for rejection by draftee medical boards included "defects of developmental processes," "nervous and mental troubles," "diseases of the skin and teeth" and "defects of the respiratory organs [other than tuberculosis]."

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

Want to Learn More About Military Life?

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

military.com · by Blake Stilwell · April 6, 2023

15. ‘Outrageous’: Russia Accused of Spreading Disinformation at U.N. Event

Perhaps the UNSC should boycott the council until the Council presidency rotates. No UNSC action until there is a new Security Council president. Or maybe the UN general Assembly could initiate action to withdraw Russia from the Security Cuncil or at least take away its veto.

That said, I am really reluctant to recommend any kind of boycott because it was a boycott by the Soviet Union over China in 1950 that led to the biggest UN failure for the USSR (UN intervention to defend South Korea's freedom). No one should make the same mistake.

‘Outrageous’: Russia Accused of Spreading Disinformation at U.N. Event

The New York Times · by Farnaz Fassihi · April 5, 2023

Moscow used its rotating presidency of the Security Council to host a session on deported Ukrainian children, leading some officials to walk out.

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

Maria Lvova-Belova, head of Russia’s children’s protection agency, addressed the U.N. Security Council via video on Wednesday.Credit...Michelle Nichols/Reuters

April 5, 2023, 8:44 p.m. ET

Days after Russia took the helm of the U.N. Security Council’s rotating presidency, a coalition of more than 50 countries on Wednesday called Moscow’s first event a brazen disinformation showcase and an abuse of its role at the world body.

Russia hosted an informal Council meeting on the fate of thousands of Ukrainian children forcefully deported to Russia and placed with Russian families for adoption — a move that the International Criminal Court of Justice labeled a war crime. The court also issued arrest warrants last month for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and the head of that country’s children protection agency, Maria Lvova-Belova.

But not only did Moscow host and livestream an event on Wednesday about the very issue that drew global condemnation, Ms. Lvova-Belova also appeared via video before the Council to deny the charges and defend Russia’s actions.

When she spoke, representatives of several Western countries, including Britain, Malta and the United States, walked out of the chamber, returning only to deliver speeches condemning Russia.

“No amount of disinformation spread by the Russian Federation can deny the truth of the matter nor shield individuals from accountability for these crimes,” a joint statement by the United States, Ukraine and European Union member states said.

The State of the War

Finland’s Entry to NATO: The Nordic country officially became the military alliance’s 31st member, in what amounts to a strategic defeat for President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
Drone Warfare: Using aerial drones to spot the enemy and direct artillery fire has become a staple of war for Ukraine and Russia, especially in the fiercely contested city of Bakhmut.
Killing of Pro-War Blogger: Russian authorities detained a suspect in the bombing that killed a popular military blogger in St. Petersburg and blamed Ukraine and Russian opposition activists for the attack.
Counteroffensive Challenges: With powerful Western weapons and newly formed assault units, Ukraine is poised for a critical spring campaign. But overcoming casualties and keeping troops motivated will be difficult tests.

Ms. Lvova-Belova said she was pleased to have the opportunity to “dispel the fakes and show the opposite side,” and that Russia was ready to cooperate with the reunification of the Ukrainian children with their families. “We have no doubt that this is a campaign to discredit our country and attempts to conceal their irresponsible actions about children,” Ms. Lvova-Belova told the Council.

She noted that Russia did not recognize the jurisdiction of the international court.

Britain’s mission to the United Nations had said that it would block the U.N. webcast of Russia’s session because of Ms. Lvova-Belova’s appearance. “If she wants to give an account of her actions, she can do so in The Hague,” it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, Russia found a way, providing a livestream of the event, with simultaneous translation, on YouTube.

“It is outrageous, outrageous that Russia’s event today included Maria Lvova-Belova,” said Ngoyi Ngoyi, a representative of the U.S. mission to the United Nations. He said Russia’s actions demonstrated its contempt for the United Nations and international law, and called its attempts to justify its actions “appalling.”

Russia took over the rotating presidency of the Security Council more than year after its military stormed across the borders of neighboring Ukraine. The session on Wednesday flew in the face of American and European diplomats’ hope. They said they expected Russia to conduct its work professionally but would call out Moscow if it used the platform to spread propaganda and disinformation to justify its actions in Ukraine.

Britain’s foreign secretary, James Cleverly, said on Twitter that his country would “never allow Russia’s lies to go unchallenged.”

Russia’s moves also called into question a statement made on Monday by its ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, who said, “We do not abuse the prerogatives of the presidency,” adding that “we cherish” the role of the Council presidency.

The session on Wednesday included a stream of video appearances and images apparently meant to make the case that Russia’s actions in Ukraine were justified and that the children were in good hands.

There were upbeat testimonials from officials from regions in Ukraine illegally annexed by Russia and not recognized by the United Nations; video messages from women claiming to be Ukrainian mothers who said that they were very pleased to have their children whisked away to Russia; and three promotional-style videos showing Ms. Lvova-Belova visiting Ukrainian children in hospitals and homes — and hugging and kissing them and handing them toys.

Mr. Nebenzia, the Russian ambassador, also used the forum to spin highly questionable narratives. He said, without providing any evidence, that Ukrainian children were being forcibly separated from their families and taken to European countries like Germany, Spain and Portugal for placement in shelters and with local families. Mr. Nebenzia said a Russian lawyer was involved in “extracting Ukrainian children from European slavery.”

He also accused the United States of forcibly transferring Vietnamese children to American shores after the Vietnam War and placing them with American families for adoption and refusing to return them to their families.

Not all Council members condemned Russia on Wednesday.

China, another permanent member of the Council and an ally of Russia’s, said it had taken note of Russia’s willingness to unify children with families and spoke generally of the need to protect children in armed conflicts.

Japan, one of the countries that signed the joint statement condemning Russia, said Moscow needed to evacuate its forces from Ukraine instead of evacuating children.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sat out the session on Wednesday but said she had met with her Russian counterpart, Mr. Nebenzia, on Tuesday to demand the release of The Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been detained in Russia on espionage charges.

It was the first time that American and Russian ambassadors to the United Nations had a one- on-one meeting since the Russian invasion.

The New York Times · by Farnaz Fassihi · April 5, 2023

16. Asserting a Cyber Border

Conclusion:

It is beyond time that the United States asserts a border in cyberspace. By combining the physical location of internet traffic with its destination address, the United States could assert a border in cyberspace. A declared cyberspace border would allow public or private organizations to defend themselves, their organizations, and their people from harmful data that continues to persist.

Asserting a Cyber Border

By David Greggs

April 08, 2023

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/04/08/asserting_a_cyber_border_892656.html

Where is the United States border in cyberspace? Does one exist? There are a variety of opinions on the subject but few absolutes. While land, sea, and airspace boundaries remain well established, there is no cyberspace border. Without an established and defined border, homeland defense in cyberspace remains confusingly spread between public and private organizations. Discussion of cyberspace borders often runs headfirst into an argument over privacy. When should the data be inspected and who should inspect it? This creates significant privacy concerns and answering this question is beyond the scope of this article. However, before we can begin to answer questions related to if or how data should be inspected, the first question to be answered is where the border is. Effective discussion about homeland defense of the United States cannot progress without clarity of a cyber border.

The U.S. should assert a cyberspace border. One way to do that is the identification of internet traffic packets as they cross logical and physical infrastructure. To explore this topic, this article examines how a border enables a nation to defend itself, explores some basics of how the internet works, identifies how the cyber domain is unique, and recommends how the United States could define the cyberspace border.

A Border Enables Defense

Internationally, a nation’s sovereignty is accepted as its land territory, airspace, and twelve nautical miles from the coast. The United Nations formally established the twelve nautical miles with the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Additionally, U.S. Code and a Presidential Proclamation by Ronald Reagen has affirmed this space. While territorial disputes continue to persist, the important fact remains that there is general acceptance and international recognition of physical borders.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the free world widely recognized that this was an invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory. Ukraine continues to defend within their sovereign territory, with international recognition that they have the right to do so. Additionally, the U.S. and its allies provided billions of dollars in financial aid to Ukraine to support their fight. While many support Ukraine’s defensive efforts, the international community would be less likely to support a counteroffensive into Russian territory because this would be a violation of Russian sovereignty. Borders matter—when they are recognized.

Sovereign physical territory zones are well established thanks to many years of history, legal opinions, and disputes. The United States government asserts their control over its territory, and the zones are generally accepted across the international community. Nevertheless, significant international cyber attacks across borders continue to persist at high rates. However, international cyberspace borders remain undefined. More directly, the United States government makes no assertions as to what their cyberspace border is.

An established border provides international justification and recognition that a nation may defend itself when the border is breached. With cyberspace, this creates a problem because there are no established borders. Supporting Ukraine became an easier decision when Russia invaded it. While Russian forces remained near the border in Belarus or in Russian territory ahead of the invasion, Ukraine did not preemptively attack and would have potentially lost the international community’s support had they done so. However, once Russia crossed the border, Ukraine responded violently with the support of the international community. Essentially, an established border enabled Ukraine to defend itself. Without a border violation, Ukraine would not have the same level of support they do today.

Some Internet Basics

Before discussing cyberspace borders, it is important to establish some internet basics. In cyberspace, network traffic travels along a logical (digital) path. The logical path of data coincides with physical gateways, routers, and switches. This physical equipment, the infrastructure which makes the internet work, could be anywhere. Data does not stop moving through the physical infrastructure until it reaches its destination, as determined by the data destination address.

Every piece of information transiting the internet can be broken down into packets of data. Each packet of data includes a TO address and FROM address. Anyone analyzing internet traffic can see the TO and FROM addresses. An easy way to think of this is a piece of mail in an envelope. The addresses are visible, but what is in the envelope may not be discernable. If the packet is encrypted, the envelope is in a sort of security envelope. If someone sends a virus over the internet, the virus may be broken down into many different packets of data. However, the destination address remains visible at all times.

Additionally, at any given fractional moment in time, the packet will be physically located somewhere. Different packets could take diverse routes to get to a particular destination. Packets use both logical routing and physical infrastructure to get where they are going.

As an example, suppose a hostile actor in Russia sends a virus to a destination in California. Now, suppose the virus data enters an internet gateway in New York, then travels through multiple states before finally reaching California. The virus traverses several United States spaces (logically and physically) before its destination. Data packets could be intercepted, destroyed, or blocked anywhere along the network path from New York to California. However, intercepting data and checking it for malicious activity - especially if you are not the owner of the data - creates tremendous privacy concerns.

Similar to a piece of mail moving through a postal system, we can generally see where data came from and where it is going. Most users cannot always see what is inside the ‘envelope,’ or the actual data. If the package contains something malicious, such as a virus, it will not get inspected until the receiver opens it. Thus, someone could (and it happens every day) send malicious traffic through United States physical infrastructure without ever officially crossing an international border. The data may physically reside on United States, publicly or privately owned infrastructure, but international sovereignty has not been legally violated because of the lack of a legal definition of a cyber border. As a result, malicious traffic passes through United States networks and its network infrastructure (physical items), but the international border has not been crossed because there is no defined border.

A Free and Open Domain

For most of the world, cyberspace is thought of as a free and open domain. There are no borders. At least, that is how many people discuss it. The internet’s openness allows anyone to post about nearly any subject and share data across the globe. Authoritarian regimes like China, with its Great Firewall, are moderately successful in restricting the internet. Ultimately, privacy concerns in the United States outweigh desires to implement security measures that could lead to an American Great Firewall.

Defending and protecting a border in cyberspace could mean data inspections at a point of entry, like an internet gateway. Inevitably, inspections could include searches and seizures of data. Thus, privacy concerns likely remain a significant factor for why no borders have been established. However, before ideas of security implementation can be discussed, the first step is to establish a border.

A Way to Establish a Border in Cyberspace

It is possible to take some of the accepted physical border principles and apply them to cyberspace. If an enemy is in sovereign space and is on its way to a U.S. location, the United States can assert that the threat has crossed the border. In cyberspace, this means that if a packet of data passes through U.S. owned (Public or Private) internet infrastructure and that packet of data is bound for a U.S. location, these two factors are enough to say that a given packet has crossed the cyber border. Thus, the cyber border equals physical internet infrastructure where the current physical location of the data crosses, and a U.S. location as the ultimate destination address of the data. If the destination address is not a United States location, then similar to a piece of mail, only in cases where some sort of obvious red flag could the United States assert control over the data. If data passes through a United States network on its way to somewhere not in the United States and the data caused damage to the United States, only after the fact could the U.S. assert that the border has been crossed.

In all but rare cases, perhaps there is no reasonable justification to examine the contents of a packet of data for national defense. Asserting a border does not call to inspect data but merely to say that the border has been crossed. If the border is defined, public and private organizations can better discuss defending their territory. Adding a border gives weight to the crime. Lacking a border, criminals and state sponsored cyber actors can remain ambivalent regarding the network traffic path. Without border crossings, response actions may prove more difficult with legal considerations presenting their own challenges.

Asserting that the international cyber border is the first internet gateway where internet traffic crosses into physical United States internet infrastructure with a corresponding network destination based in friendly territory, the U.S. can make a legitimate claim for homeland defense. This does not answer the question of what level/how the United States government should be involved in national cyber security. However, discussion about homeland defense cannot move ahead without precision of where the United States should defend or when the nation should begin its defensive efforts.

If the United States asserts that it has a cyber border, the world may follow. Unfortunately, the United States and the international community remain in a state of confusion regarding a cyber border. The cyber border remains undefined, and its defenses disparately spread among both public and private entities.

Conclusion

It is beyond time that the United States asserts a border in cyberspace. By combining the physical location of internet traffic with its destination address, the United States could assert a border in cyberspace. A declared cyberspace border would allow public or private organizations to defend themselves, their organizations, and their people from harmful data that continues to persist.

David Greggs is a major in the United States Army. He is a cyber operations officer with a background in intelligence. He has deployed to Afghanistan, completed a master’s degree in Information Technology Management. He is also a graduate of the Advanced Military Studies Program and the Command and General Staff College.

The views expressed in this work are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.

17. Washington and Ike's Warning On Foreign Policy Greed

Hmmm... For weekend reflection.

Conclusion:

Washington and Eisenhower were war leaders who kept America out of wars during their respective presidencies. They put America’s interests first. Their examples and their words should guide us through the travails of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Washington and Ike's Warning On Foreign Policy Greed

By Francis P. Sempa

April 08, 2023

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/04/07/washington_and_ikes_warning_on_foreign_policy_greed_892638.html

Two of our greatest military leaders were also two of our greatest presidents. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower each issued a compelling Farewell Address that attempted to warn the American people about the dangers of going to war over values instead of interests, of basing foreign policy decisions on sentiment instead of security, and of allowing ideals rather than realities to shape policy choices. They also tried to warn their countrymen about the insidious nature of foreign influences and the powerful and self-serving influence of the “military-industrial complex,” a phrase made famous in Eisenhower’s 1961 speech.

The issue of a military-industrial complex in America and its influence over our foreign policy seems relevant to the discussion of our interests in Ukraine. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that since the war began, the United States has provided the Kyiv government with more than $75 billion. Major defense contractors like Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin stand to make significant profits from U.S. support for Ukraine.

For their part, top U.S. lawmakers including GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell have voiced bi-partisan support for continued military assistance to Ukraine. Major newspapers in the U.S. have been full-throated supporters of military assistance to Ukraine. Elite opinion journalists such as Brett Stephens, George Will, Rich Lowry, Max Boot, David Frum, Bill Kristol, and many others have joined the pro-war chorus—some of the very same voices, it is worth noting, who advocated the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The pro-war forces have portrayed the Ukraine war as an existential struggle between the forces of democracy and autocracy. They have compared Vladimir Putin to Hitler. They have called anyone who doubts the wisdom of deeper U.S. involvement in the war “Putin apologists.” They have appealed to the sentiments and values of the American people about the plight of Ukrainians who were unjustly attacked by Russia. They have characterized the Ukrainian president as a hero. They have invoked the “lessons of Munich” and the “domino theory” to justify greater U.S. involvement in the war. One former high-ranking Pentagon official has opined that the future of liberal democracy and Western civilization is at stake in the Ukraine war.

From politics, business, media, and beyond, these modern voices speak up in favor of deepening America’s engagement in Ukraine. Though we cannot measure their impact, history shows they can influence the perceptions of America’s military and civilian leaders.

On April 22, 1793, President Washington issued a proclamation declaring U.S. neutrality in the European conflict between France and Great Britain, which produced a fierce response by American partisans of France. One French supporter wrote: “The cause of France is the cause of man, and neutrality is desertion.” Washington’s own Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson considered neutrality a betrayal of the country and people that helped America win its independence from Britain. Partisan newspapers in America that had unabashedly praised the French Revolution sympathized with the French in their struggle with our former colonizers. Not for the last time did sentiment and sympathy for another nation and people promote U.S. involvement in war.

In 1898, “Remember the Maine” shouted supporters of the war against Spain, as the United States went to war in Cuba and the Philippines and acquired an overseas empire based on a false claim that Spain blew-up the USS Maine in Havana’s Harbor. Before the sinking of the Maine, the media had been pouring fuel on the fire of war by emphasizing Spain’s mistreatment of its Cuban colony while lionizing Cuban independence forces. And in Washington, the Navy Department was temporarily headed by its assistant secretary Theodore Roosevelt who sought war with Spain.

Twenty years later, the United States lost more than 116,000 men in fighting a war to “make the world safe for democracy,” a war that eventually resulted in the greatest threat to democracy both at home (with Wilson’s repressive domestic war measures) and abroad (with the rise of communism and fascism). After the “war to end war,” Congress briefly investigated the companies that profited greatly from the war—perhaps the first significant warning about the influence of the “military-industrial complex” on policymaking in Washington.

Two decades later, after years of unpreparedness presided over by Franklin Roosevelt, the United States fought a global war which defeated two expansionist powers, but which also led to the rise of expansionist communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and North Vietnam, and produced the permanent bureaucratization of the national security state at home. The “military-industrial complex” inhabited a growing space in Washington, D.C. and its environs, complete with lobbyists, intelligence “experts,” academics, think tanks, and a growing cadre of policy wonks dedicated to war-planning and strategy.

With at first overwhelmingly bi-partisan support, we fought an indecisive war on the Korean peninsula then later suffered defeat in a lengthy war in Indochina. In neither instance did Congress declare war as required by the Constitution. The rise of the national security state led to the rise of the “imperial presidency.” After all, if we give the president the exclusive authority to launch nuclear weapons, what use is a declaration of war? The United States fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan without a Congressional declaration of war and, except for the first Gulf War, the outcomes were either inconclusive or outright defeats. As Col. Harry Summers noted in his book on our failure in Vietnam, the president’s refusal to seek a declaration of war from Congress resulted in the “failure to invoke the national will.” A congressional declaration of war, Summers wrote, “makes the prosecution of the war a shared responsibility of both government and the American people.”

Washington and Eisenhower both successfully led American and allied armies during wartime. But they kept the peace during their presidencies, resisting calls for war and substituting hardheaded diplomacy for the false glory of combat. Washington’s proclamation of neutrality kept the new nation out of a global war between France and its allies and Great Britain and its coalition partners. Eisenhower managed to avoid war and protect U.S. interests in the South China Sea (the first two Taiwan Strait crises) and the Middle East (the Suez crisis). Both leaders left us with pearls of wisdom in the form of Farewell Addresses regarding U.S. national security policy that we should keep in mind when determining policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war.

Washington’s Farewell Address first appeared publicly on September 19, 1796. Washington characterized his address as “the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel.” He warned his countrymen to expect “the batteries of internal and external enemies” to be directed against the country. He exhorted his fellow citizens to preserve their union to gain “greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations,” and to avoid civil wars. Anticipating Eisenhower’s warning issued more than a century and a half later, Washington noted the danger of “those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” Washington also warned that “love of power and proneness to abuse it . . . predominates in the human heart.” His view of human nature informed his counsel on foreign policy.

Washington as general led armies to defeat Britain with the help of France, yet as president he refused to come to France’s aid in its future wars with Britain despite vehement opposition by his own Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and against the sentiments of perhaps half the country. Gratitude and sentiment, Washington knew, have no proper place in the conduct of foreign policy. “[N]othing is more essential,” he wrote, “than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded . . .” “The nation,” he continued, “which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave . . . to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” Statesmen should avoid animosity and hostility toward other nations that is “instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives.” Policy that is driven by “ill will and resentment” toward other nations could cause the United States to wage war “contrary to the best calculation” of interests, while “passionate attachment” and “sympathy” for a favored nation creates the “illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists.” Washington warned that such sentiments could be used by “ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens . . . [to] betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity,” by disguising as virtuous what is in reality “ambition, corruption, or infatuation.”

Washington favored “extending our commercial relations” with foreign nations, but having “as little political connection as possible” with them. The nations of Europe, he noted, have “a set of primary interests” that America does not share. Europe’s conflicts and “controversies” should be “foreign to our concerns.” America should refrain from forming “artificial ties” with European nations and resist “implicat[ing] ourselves . . . in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Geography (“our detached and distant situation”), Washington understood, enabled the United States to “choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel.” America should “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” and “trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” “There can be no greater error,” he continued, “than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.” That is why, he explained, America remained neutral in the war between Britain and France despite animosity toward the former and sentiment in favor of the latter.

Fast forward 165 years to January 1961, when Dwight Eisenhower delivered his Farewell Address to the American people on television from the oval office. The Cold War was intensifying and was about to produce a series of crises. Eisenhower, who like Washington, had been through his share of wars and crises, counseled America to meet the burdens of the Soviet challenge not with emotion but “steadily, surely, and without complaint.” The United States, he said, must “remain, despite every provocation, on our chartered course toward permanent peace and human betterment.”

Eisenhower understood that America would continue to face international crises, but he cautioned against the “temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties,” including calls for a “huge increase in newer elements of our defense.” “Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action,” he said, “so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.” But the combined influence of a large military establishment and an equally large “armaments industry” has “grave implications” for the “very structure of our society.”

“In the councils of government,” Eisenhower warned in the most famous part of the address, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex” because it has the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power” in the formation of our national security policy. Less remembered but equally prescient, Eisenhower expressed concern about the growing influence of a “scientific-technological elite” in determining public policy.

Like Washington, Eisenhower counseled America to be “confident but humble with power” and “diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.” He expressed the hope that all nations would become a “confederation of mutual trust and respect” and that we should always strive to use our “moral, economic and military strength” to pursue our interests at “the conference table” instead of the “certain agony of the battlefield.” We must learn how to deal with international differences, he counseled, “not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revived the influence of sentiment and sympathy for other nations in our councils of government. It has stirred passionate attachments on the part of Americans to Ukraine and its people. It has produced widespread antipathy and hostility on the part of Americans toward Russia. It has led U.S. policymakers and many opinion-makers to equate Ukrainian interests with our own. We have, to paraphrase Washington, become a slave to the interests of Ukraine. And, increasingly, we have ignored Eisenhower’s wise and prudent counsel to resolve differences at the conference table, and instead have helped fuel the “certain agony of the battlefield” in Ukraine. And, as Eisenhower warned, the influence of the “military-industrial complex” and the “scientific-technological elite” has helped shape America’s response to the war.

Washington and Eisenhower were war leaders who kept America out of wars during their respective presidencies. They put America’s interests first. Their examples and their words should guide us through the travails of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Francis P. Sempa writes on foreign policy and geopolitics. His Best Defense columns appear at the beginning of each month.

18. New U.S. warehouse center in Poland to store tanks, Bradleys for future fights

Logistics. Wins. Wars.

New U.S. warehouse center in Poland to store tanks, Bradleys for future fights

Largest new depot in decades opened as Ukraine war with Russia grinds on

washingtontimes.com · by Mike Glenn

American military troops responding to a future crisis in Eastern Europe will now have enough combat-ready equipment waiting for them in Poland to supply a U.S. armored brigade.

On Wednesday, Polish and U.S. officials formally opened the Long-Term Equipment Storage and Maintenance Complex in Powidz, about 160 miles west of Warsaw.

The weapons depot is NATO‘s biggest single infrastructure investment in more than 30 years and was the culmination of over six years of effort, officials said.

“The strategic partnership with the United States and Poland‘s active membership in the North Atlantic Alliance are the pillars of our homeland’s security,” said Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak. “This base is important because thanks to this, we increase our deterrence capabilities, and we also show solidarity within NATO.”

The complex will feature seven gigantic warehouses filled with almost 3,000 pieces of combat equipment, from tanks to Bradley fighting vehicles, that will be used by arriving U.S. troops, said Mark Brzezinski, the U.S. ambassador to Poland.

“This facility will ensure we can continue to be fast. It will allow us to deploy an entire armored brigade combat team in an expeditious manner,” Ambassador Brzezinski said. “It will significantly cut down on deployment timelines.”

The depot opening comes amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, now in its second year. Moscow’s aggression has prompted previously nonaligned countries like Finland and Sweden to seek membership in the NATO alliance.

Poland has established close ties with Kyiv and is a leading voice within NATO calling for more powerful military support for Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion force.

• Mike Glenn can be reached at mglenn@washingtontimes.com.

washingtontimes.com · by Mike Glenn

19. From Korea to Afghanistan: Special Forces Legend Billy Waugh's Amazing Career Spanned Five Decades

We cannot read enough about this great American hero.

From Korea to Afghanistan: Special Forces Legend Billy Waugh's Amazing Career Spanned Five Decades

military.com · by Drew F. Lawrence · April 6, 2023

To say William "Billy" Waugh was a legend in the Special Forces community is more than an understatement. He was very nearly mythological.

The unparalleled godfather of the Green Berets, and CIA septuagenarian at the spearhead of early operations in Afghanistan, passed away Tuesday. He was 93.

Waugh was on any short list of famed operators who deployed to the Korean, Vietnam and Afghanistan wars, serving in dozens of countries in his more than 50-year career with Special Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency.

In Vietnam, he was almost fatally wounded, later receiving a Silver Star. Despite the wounds, he returned to the war after recovering at Walter Reed. In the '70s, he was the first soldier to conduct a high-altitude, low-opening jump -- known as a HALO jump, now a staple in the special operations repertoire.

When he finished his military career at the rank of sergeant major, Waugh had earned the Silver Star, four Bronze Stars, eight Purple Hearts, more than a dozen Army Air Medals, and a bevy of other awards, according to 1st Special Forces Command, which announced his passing this week.

"From Korea to Afghanistan and every conflict in between, I have fought whomever my country ordered me to fight," Waugh wrote in his autobiography, "Hunting the Jackal." "For 50 years in 64 countries, I have sought and destroyed my country's enemies -- whether they be called communists or terrorists -- wherever they hide."

While Waugh is known for his daring feats and fabled accolades, he was also a lifelong supporter of the military communities that formed him. In turn, he formed them under the shadow of his likeness, never losing his Texas heart, keen wit and indomitable spirit.

Getting a Taste of Combat

At the end of World War II, Waugh, who was born in Texas, ran off to join the Marines at the age of 15, hitchhiking 650 miles across the New Mexico desert. He made it as far as Las Cruces before getting picked up by police for failing to have any identification or "any f---ing money," as he would later recount in an interview with RECOILtv.

"So, I hitchhiked across New Mexico and got dumped out in the desert and it began there," he said. Momentarily hampered, Waugh returned to his hometown of Bastrop, Texas, for a belt-whipping from his mother and eventually a high school diploma.

In August 1948, six months after he turned 18, Waugh joined the Army as a paratrooper, going on to jump out of "a heck of a lot of aircraft."

"I didn't like the Army at all until I got a taste of combat in Korea," he wrote. Waugh rose through the ranks quickly during the Korean War. A spirited and determined man had finally found his place in life -- and it was on the battlefield.

"For the first time in my life, I felt completely at home," he wrote.

In 1952, Waugh attempted to complete Officer Candidate School, but the operator powers that be knew he was needed in the enlisted corps. After contracting malaria in the final weeks of the course, he was placed in the hospital and told he had to revert back to an earlier week.

Instead, he kept his rank of sergeant first class and was assigned as a platoon sergeant in Germany. It was there that he began to hear whispers of the Special Forces -- the Green Berets, the infamous and deadly snake-eaters, who came into existence as an organization in the early 1950s.

"I began politicking for a transfer to SF, and I made a trip to Bad Tolz, [Germany] to see for myself," he wrote. "Once I learned what these fine men -- the fittest and most committed group I had ever seen -- were to become, I knew it was the only place for me."

'Perforated with Gunshot Wounds'

On June 18, 1965, Waugh was nearly dead in a rice paddy. He was the team sergeant for A Team, 5th Special Forces Group, and had been in and out of Vietnam for the last four years.

He and three other Green Berets, including then-Capt. Paris Davis, who just last month was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions that June, were leading a company of inexperienced South Vietnamese soldiers on a raid near the east coast of the country along the South China Sea.

There, after midnight, Waugh, A Team and 86 Vietnamese "mercenaries," as he called them, killed upward of 100 enemies in a stronghold. His actions there earned him the Silver Star.

But after the raid, the South Vietnamese became unorganized, and soon hundreds of enemy fighters counterattacked and pinned the group to a knoll overlooking rice paddies where Waugh was lying near death.

Waugh had taken Vietnamese bullets to his ankle, knees and forehead, wounds that would contribute to his eight Purple Hearts. He was not afraid to die, per se, but rather worried he might never do the thing he loved again.

"I drifted in and out of consciousness, my body perforated with gunshot wounds, leeches feasting on every open wound, with one thought jabbing at my semilucid brain," he wrote. "Damn, my military career is finished. I'll never see combat again."

That, of course, never came to pass -- the operator powers that be again had other plans for Waugh when Davis pulled his near-lifeless body out of the feces-laden paddy and put him on a helicopter.

Davis did not leave a single member of his team behind that day, and would go on to earn the Medal of Honor in March after decades of supporters fighting for its upgrade from a Silver Star.

When Davis was home in 1969, explaining to the public the perils he and his team faced that day, Waugh was recovered and back in Vietnam with the highly classified Military Assistance Command-Vietnam Studies and Observations Group, or MACV-SOG, where he trained Vietnamese fighters in unconventional warfare.

It was with this team that Waugh conducted the first HALO jump into communist North Vietnamese Army-occupied territory as a sergeant major, according to his book and 1st Special Forces Command, one that was done without any of the high-tech night vision devices or altimeters seen in Special Forces today.

"I am saddened to learn of the passing of Billy Waugh, a friend and a great American soldier," Davis told Military.com on Wednesday.

"Billy served our country with distinction, honor and dedication to serving selflessly on behalf of all American citizens," he said. "I remember him as one of the best soldiers I have ever served with in combat. May God bless him and keep him forever."

Davis signed the message as "an admirer and teammate."

At Home in the War on Terror

Waugh retired in 1972 and returned to Texas for a brief stint with the U.S. Postal Service. "After nearly twenty years in SF, much of it in combat, sorting mail doesn't scratch the same itch," he wrote. "Not even close."

Five years later, Waugh wrote he received a mysterious phone call from an old Special Forces friend. "Billy, are you ready to travel?" the voice asked over the receiver.

And travel Billy did. For the next three decades, he worked as a CIA operative in dozens of countries, starting first in Libya spying on the Soviet-aligned government. There, he honed his skill with a 35mm camera, a craft that would serve him well in his career with the agency.

Between the '70s and '80s, Waugh took on more heavy-duty assignments with the CIA, anywhere from the Marshall Islands to Sudan.

In 2001, when most retired soldiers and spooks would be enjoying their golden years, Waugh was celebrating his 72nd birthday in Afghanistan. He was still with the CIA, this time hunting Osama bin Laden in the caves and high plains of Tora Bora.

He was a rare feature of war, a man who stood at the forefront of America's two most infamous insurgent conflicts -- a fact and position that was certainly not lost on him.

"Two weeks earlier, when the United States Air Force C-17 Globemaster III headed for Afghanistan lifted off with me aboard, our country was officially embarking on its War on Terror," he wrote. "I, however, had been at war against terror for quite some time. To me, Operation Enduring Freedom was a natural extension of the work I'd been conducting for close to fifty years."

But Waugh was also a fixture in the Special Forces community up until his death this week. Current and former Special Forces members took to social media to share their stories of meeting Billy Waugh.

1st Special Forces Command wrote on social media: "Our condolences go out to Billy's family, friends, and loved ones. He will be missed. We will always honor and remember him."

The Army's John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School said, "He was a pioneer and an American hero who will be missed by many."

Joseph Teti, a co-star of the Discovery Channel's show "Dual Survival" and a former operator, including nearly a decade of service with the Green Berets, said he met Waugh twice while they were both in the CIA.

"I actually saw Billy one time prior," Teti told Military.com on Thursday, recounting one of his first years at the agency. "I knew who he was and I was -- quite frankly -- just too intimidated to even go up to the guy."

Teti would meet Waugh again, this time in early-2000s Afghanistan at a hotel bar. Waugh invited him to have a drink.

"He was just cordial, very nice," Teti said. "When he talks, you just shut up and listen; he was one of those guys that was just such a wealth of knowledge."

Another MACV-SOG alumnus, Jesse Campbell, was with Waugh at the time. Teti told them he admired a picture of them that was hanging on the wall of the bar. It was from their Vietnam days. Waugh asked the bartender to take it down, and he and Campbell both signed it.

The top of the image read, "Joe, kill all the bad guys."

"He handed it to me. You could have knocked me over with a feather duster. ... He didn't know me from a can of paint," Teti said, adding that talking to Waugh "was almost like you were talking to a family member."

Teti rattled his accolades, a condition that many in the community have when it comes to the legend of Billy Waugh. Teti said that Waugh was as "tough as woodpecker lips" and harder than "Superman's kneecaps" to do what he did for as long as he did it for.

"It's staggering," he said. "It's a testament to how good of an operator he was -- to physically survive what he was doing in such austere and dangerous high-threat environments."

-- Drew F. Lawrence can be reached at drew.lawrence@military.com. Follow him on Twitter @df_lawrence.

military.com · by Drew F. Lawrence · April 6, 2023

20. Army readies for record-setting logistics exercise in Pacific

Again, logistics wins wars. And it may be as cool as tanks and artillery or aerial dogfights or naval battles or jumping out of airplanes or kicking down doors but none of that can happen without logistics to sustain operations.

The question is with the laws of physics in the Pacific (time and distance) can we achieve logistics superiority to first deter war and then win it if necessary?

Army readies for record-setting logistics exercise in Pacific

Defense News · by Jen Judson · April 7, 2023

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The U.S. Army is preparing to put its logistics tail to the test in the Indo-Pacific, considered the most challenging operational theater in the world by service officials.

This summer, the service will hold a large-scale exercise in Australia dubbed Talisman Sabre. As part of the two-week training event that starts in late July, the Army will deliver massive amounts of equipment across challenging terrain and large distances, Brig. Gen. Jered Helwig, the Army’s 8th Theater Sustainment Command commander, told Defense News last week.

“The scale is an order of magnitude higher than anything that has ever been done before,” he said during an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium here. “It’s been a huge undertaking. Just for one example, Australia’s got very strict agricultural requirements, and we have quadrupled the amount of equipment that we’re bringing … one of the contested things is ensuring that we can [keep] the leopard snail from getting into Australia.”

That has meant months cleaning equipment in Oahu, Hawaii, to prevent the tiny hitchhikers from waging the slowest of invasions, according to Helwig.

Logistics and sustainment are central to carving out a key role for the Army in the Pacific as the U.S. seeks to deter China and prepares to protect allies and partners.

Top military officials have said the region will require the Army to adapt its approach to logistics, and the service is standing up a team focused on enabling the deployment of troops and large amounts of equipment even in constantly contested environments.

But Helwig said the most valuable way to bolster logistics in a contested environment is to exercise it.

“We have to rehearse sustainment at scale and treat logistics as a warfighting function as we rehearse it as part of our campaigning,” he said.

Talisman Sabre, an exercise between Australia and the U.S. that occurs every other year, will prioritize the logistics tail with a smaller emphasis on other operations, he added. Joining the U.S. and Australian armies are South Korea, Indonesia and Japan.

Helwig’s command will set up its main post in Brisbane, Australia, which it has not done outside of Hawaii before, Helwig said. Additionally, the post will consist of a joint, coalition command. “We’ll have a beautiful mix of Australian, Army and joint forces contributions; it won’t look like our standard [Tactical Operations Center],” he added.

The I Corps’ Expeditionary Sustainment Command will set up in Townsville on the northeast coast and the 25th Division Sustainment Brigade will be in Darwin. The distance between Brisbane and Darwin is roughly the same as the distance between Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Fort Carson, Colorado — about 1,617 miles.

The exercise will also include a joint logistics over-the-shore exercise where the Army will take 17 M1 Abrams tanks off of its Army Prepositioned Stock Afloat ship and onto watercraft as well as 400 pieces of rolling stock, which has never been exercised at this size in the theater. The watercraft will land on an undeveloped beach and the tanks will roll off “Saving Private Ryan-style,” Helwig said.

US Army seeks new watercraft to beef up Indo-Pacific capability

The Army's Maneuver Support Vessel (Light) was launched for the first time as the service looks to ramp up its watercraft capability in the Pacific.

The Army will construct its Trident Pier, a 1,200-foot pier that requires about 100 soldiers to assemble, to help off-load equipment.

Once on the beach in Australia, the 25th Infantry Division will drive the tanks and equipment 100 miles to Townsville.

During the exercise, the Army will also face interdiction of the common operating picture, Helwig said, to test the vulnerability of the logistics system.

Building up

Much of Talisman Sabre’s focus areas stem from lessons learned in a smaller annual exercise in the Philippines last year. The Army downloaded equipment from the APS Afloat, rehearsed configurations and drove a short distance and back, Helwig said.

Helwig said the service will increase the complexity of the annual exercise in the Philippines this year as well. While it took place over four locations last year, it now it will include nine.

The Army is also building a Theater Distribution Center in the Philippines in the area where it downloaded equipment in last year’s exercise. The center will serve as a hub for equipment and supplies there so it can be used for every exercise that takes place in the region.

The Army will also set up another distribution center in Australia and will reconfigure the one it has already built in Japan, Helwig said.

While logistics will be front and center at Talisman Sabre, the Army will also exercise logistics and sustainment all year through Operation Pathways, the U.S. Army Pacific Command’s series of annual exercises focused on building relationships with allies and partners.

“Sustainment really doesn’t get the full load against it in a single exercise,” Helwig said “It’s the combination, the weight, if you will, of multiple exercises that really gets us what we need to really see where the stressors are.”

About Jen Judson

Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

21. Human Intel and PsyOps: Running Intelligence Operations Against the Enemy

A 10 minute video at the link.

https://www.kyivpost.com/videos/15547

Human Intel and PsyOps: Running Intelligence Operations Against the Enemy

Running intelligence operations are dangerous – but vital for a nation at war. How does Putin’s own intelligence background fit into his decisions today? How does the bad intelligence that Putin is receiving from his spies influencing the outcome of the war? Will all of this contribute to Russia’s collapse and China moving in on the weakened Russia?

American Fred Hoffman ran psychological and human intelligence operations in twenty-eight countries and now teaches intelligence to Americans. He says that big things may happen that will totally change the war - soon.

By Jason Jay Smart

22. US Special Forces FY24 Budget Request

This is really about SOF aviation.

US Special Forces FY24 Budget Request

scramble.nl · by Hans van Herk

US Special Forces FY24 Budget Request

On 15 March 2023, the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) published their FY24 budget request. The 186 pages long document also contains some interesting details on the USAF and US Army Special Forces aviation assets.

USSOCOM (or SOCOM) is the unified combatant command charged with overseeing the various special operations component commands of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force of the US Armed Forces. The command is part of the Department of Defense and is the only unified combatant command created by an Act of Congress. USSOCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida.

Before going into detail, it must be said that additional aircraft and helicopters are operated by the USSOCOM under so called black budgets which obviously remain undisclosed.

At the end of FY24, the USSOCOM is requesting budget to operate the following aircraft:

USAF Special Operations Command (AFSOC)

MC-12W (9x), C-32B (2x), AC-130J (30x), MC-130J (64x), C-146A (20x), PC-12 (4x), U-28A (30x), CV-22B (52x) and MQ-9A (50x)

US Army Special Operations Command (USASOC)

C-12U (1x), C-27J (7x), CASA-212 (5x), A/MH-6M (34x), A/MH-6R (17x), MH-47G (69x), MH-60M (72x), UH-60L (2x) and MQ-1C (24x)

The document refers to CASA-212, while the military designation for this type is C-41A. Another interesting point is that both PC-12 and U-28A are mentioned in the budget request. The number of PC-12 aircraft currently on strength is listed as five, but will be reduced to four in Q4/2024. The number of U-28A aircraft mentioned remains stable at thirty.

An analysis of additional information mentioned about the planned status at the end of FY24 learns us that both the MC-130H and EC-130J will be completely withdrawn from use. This was already previously announced and actually the last MC-130H was retired to 309th AMARG at Davis Monthan AFB (AZ) early April 2023.

Regarding the seven EC-130J aircraft which were on strength with the Pennsylvania ANG, the phase out plan per year quater is as follows. The numbers between brackets are the number of EC-130Js still on active duty in that specific quarter:

Q1/2023 (7x) Q2/2023 (6x) Q3/2023 (5x) Q4/2023 (4x)

Q1/2024 (4x) Q2/2024 (4x) Q3/2024 (2x) Q4/2024 (0x)

Currently, thirteen MC-12W Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are assigned to the Oklahoma ANG. This number will be reduced in FY24. Three aircraft will be retired by Q2/2024, followed by another one in Q3/2024. A further reduction is expected to take place in FY25, eventually leading to the complete withdrawal of the type from the inventory.

What also stands out is that the planned number of flying hours of several Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) aircraft will be reduced. Exception is the MC-130J, which most likely is due to the fact that additional aircraft are still being delivered (including as replacement for the EC-130J). The overview shows details per type of flying hours FY22 actual, FY23 enacted, FY24 planned, Delta FY23 vs FY24:

AC-130J: 7,895hrs (FY22), 8,440hrs (FY23), 5,878hrs (FY24), -30% (Delta)

MC-130J: 15,483hrs (FY22), 14,611hrs (FY23), 16,242hrs (FY24), +11% (Delta)

CV-22B: 9,180hrs (FY22), 8,560hrs (FY23), 6,064hrs (FY24), -29% (Delta)

These details were not provided for the other types on the inventory list. But in a general statement it is mentioned that this reduction is mainly due to the increased costs in service prices of components. Simply said, without a massive budget increase, the only option is a flying hour reduction.

For the US Army's USASOC, the following points are worth mentioning:

The pair of MH-60L helicopters which were still on strength were retired in Q4/2022. These Black Hawks were used by the US Army Special Operations Command Flight Company (USASOC Flt Co) at Fort Bragg (NC). Interestingly, three were confirmed active end-2021: 90-26248 (sep21), 02-26961 (dec21) and 03-26983 (oct21), but either way this type now seems to be completely withdrawn from use.

Another interesting point is that the Little Bird helicopters are planned to undergo yet another modification. Depending on the mission configuration, these helicopters are designated AH-6M (attack) or MH-6M (assault). The mission configuration can be adjusted by ground crews in a very short period of time. Therefore the entire fleet is usually referred to as A/MH-6M, or simply as MH-6M. The nature of the upgrades is not yet known, but by the end of FY24, seventeen of the fifty-one helicopters are planned to be upgraded to A/MH-6R standard. It is expected that the entire fleet will be converted to this upgraded configuration in FY25 or beyond.

Concluding the analysis, at first glance it seems somewhat odd that the MH-47G Block II upgrade programme is not mentioned in this document. This is because it is part of the overall Chinook upgrade programme which falls under US Army budget and not the USSOCOM budget.

Early March-2023, it was announced that Boeing secured another order to convert six additional MH-47G helicopters to MH-47G Block II standard. Including this contract, the total number of MH-47G Block II Chinooks ordered is now thirty-six. In their FY24 budget request, the US Army is asking funding for six additional conversions.

Photo by Jeroen Jonkers (Scramble Archive)

scramble.nl · by Hans van Herk

23. A Nuanced Approach to China Needs Human Rights at the Core

Barring the possibility of war, China is not an existential threat? Huh? Unfortunately, you cannot bar the possibility of war.

Excerpts:

Barring the possibility of war, it may be accurate that the CCP does not pose an “existential threat” to most Americans, and such a misdiagnosis can lead to the wrong “prescriptions.” But it’s important to recognize that for many Uyghurs, Chinese human rights defenders, and their family members, the CCP does indeed pose an “existential threat.”

Underplaying the severity of the human rights crisis in China—or even ignoring it altogether—will only lead to resentment and a feeling of unseriousness for the victims of abuse and people who follow their stories. Even on a practical level, human rights groups, religious leaders, diaspora communities, and concerned allies will consistently put pressure on the government to do more. Beijing’s worrying record on human rights and the constant stream of untruths about how it treats its own people are also bound to raise concerns about whether it can be a good faith actor on the international stage.

Ignoring the gravity of the human rights challenge posed by the CCP, or treating it as an annoying irritant in the way of constructive relations, makes it less likely that a nuanced approach will be listened to. Foreign-policy thinkers should recognize that a forceful strategy on human rights is absolutely necessary—even if matched with actions elsewhere to ease geopolitical tensions.

ARGUMENT

An expert's point of view on a current event.

A Nuanced Approach to China Needs Human Rights at the Core

Calls for a rethink against groupthink can’t neglect real atrocities.

By William Nee, a research & advocacy coordinator at Chinese Human Rights Defenders.

Foreign Policy · by William Nee · April 7, 2023

Foreign policy pundits have been calling for a rethink to counter Washington’s alleged groupthink. There’s a certain truth in that. But one element has been missing from the mainstream of the new doves on China: human rights. Without this, their words can end up sounding hollow—especially to the victims.

Two recent events prompted new levels of concern. First, on Feb. 4, U.S. President Joe Biden made the decision to shoot down a Chinese surveillance balloon after it flew across U.S. territory. Second, a new committee in Congress, the House select committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), held its first public hearing on Feb. 28. It was the assessment by Rep. Mike Gallagher that the CCP posed an “existential” threat, and the seeming bipartisan agreement to the assessment, that set off alarm bells.

Prominent foreign affairs commentators Fareed Zakaria and Edward Luce accused the new bipartisan consensus of groupthink that could lead to war. Max Boot warned of “bipartisan alarmism” and called for a nuanced assessment of the CCP’s threat. On April 5, a group of prominent American former officials and CEOs, including former U.S. ambassadors to China, published an open letter to Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping urging them to “work diligently to repair and stabilize the state of affairs between our two countries.”

The common denominator to these op-eds and open letter seemed to be the perception that U.S.-China relations have gone dangerously off track. And indeed, while the CCP may pose a severe challenge to the United States, Washington needs to have a well thought out strategy, should not blame China for its domestic ills, and should not needlessly forsake opportunities for communication and cooperation with China.

But, for a real check on groupthink and a more nuanced perspective to win the day, policymakers and thinkers must address the role of human rights, which has been largely absent from the critique of the new bipartisan consensus thus far. Addressing human rights strongly is not only the moral thing to do, but it is necessary for a nuanced approach in order to have any hope of having those views adopted as policy. Without this, the advocates of a more calibrated approach to Beijing may end up alienating the significant communities threatened by China’s growing crackdowns—and even implicitly endorsing Beijing’s actions.

Uyghurs and other predominately Muslim groups face crimes against humanity and even the potential for significant loss of life. From 2017 onward, the Chinese government arbitrarily detained an estimated 1 million in so-called reeducation camps in Xinjiang, a northwest region four times the size of California. In the most recent House select committee hearing, a former camp detainee, Gulbahar Haitiwaji, testified to widespread torture and gang-rape within the camps, including with electric batons and tiger chairs: “And the worst thing is they—the guards or police—use electric batons to insert their private parts to rape and torture them.”

This firsthand account of witnessing torture aligns with numerous reports of torture documented by the Xinjiang Victims Database.

Although the massive arbitrary detentions may have ended, hundreds of thousands of these people and others have been subjected to long prison sentences and unfair trials. Since 2017, when many people were rounded up in large numbers, the international community has seen no evidence that the people given long sentences have been released from prison. In 2022, the Xinjiang High People’s Procuratorate, the regional agency responsible for prosecution, stated that 540,826 people had been prosecuted in the region since 2017. It’s likely that almost all have been convicted , as the Chinese courts have a 99.99 percent conviction rate. My organization, Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), is unaware of any Uyghurs being afforded lawyers of their choice.

Uyghur poets, writers, doctors, and other professionals, who are often in middle age, have been subjected to long prison terms, life in prison, or even death. There is every reason to suspect that prison conditions are just as bad as the camps. The Xinjiang Victims Database has recorded 225 deaths in custody, likely the tip of the iceberg.

To see the dangers of prolonged detention, take the case of Ekpar Asat. Ekpar took part in the U.S. State Department’s International Visitor Leader Program, and upon his return to China in 2016, he was detained and sentenced to 15 years on the charge of “inciting ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination.” There was no evidence that the trial was public or that Ekpar had a lawyer, in violation of international law. His sister, Yale Law School fellow Rayhan Asat, said on Twitter that her parents recently had a brief two-minute video chat with him, and he looked “unrecognizable and lost huge weight” so that he just “looked like a skull.”

Until Ekpar and all those who have been unjustly imprisoned are released and are found to be healthy and alive, the U.S. government and others who are pushing for more sensible U.S.-China ties must act as if it were probable that a significant number of these people may die in prison or may have been otherwise killed.

That moral calculus must underlie attitudes toward Beijing—not least because sustained foreign attention has made a difference before. The Chinese government once denied it was locking people up in reeducation camps at all, but it was after the U.N. review of China’s record of its implementation of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in August 2018 that the government finally admitted that many people were indeed being held in “vocational education and training centers.”

As the controversy over the camps continued, the Xinjiang government unexpectedly announced in July 2019 that “over 90 percent of the students” in the camps had returned to society and the camp system had ended. Since the government has not allowed independent human rights experts into the region, it is impossible to verify those claims, but journalists traveling in the region have observed that some former reeducation camps seem to have been abandoned or converted to other uses.

This shows that international pressure can have some effect—even if only partially and incompletely, as the continued detention of hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs in the prison system and the targeting of Uyghur religion and culture shows. But even this is meaningful.

The Chinese Han majority also need attention from foreign powers regarding human rights. In a new report, CHRD found that, even under Xi’s dictatorial rule, human rights defenders were finding ways to build support networks. They were continuing their work for a better tomorrow and were simply “persisting in resisting.”

We found that human rights defenders made use of the few legal tools available to them, despite China’s deeply flawed legal system and lack of independence of the judiciary. They were often at the forefront in assisting marginalized populations and helping to build a more inclusive China. And they overwhelmingly expressed that attention to individual cases by foreign governments, the United Nations, and NGOs played a positive role in putting pressure on the government and improving conditions for human rights defenders.

Barring the possibility of war, it may be accurate that the CCP does not pose an “existential threat” to most Americans, and such a misdiagnosis can lead to the wrong “prescriptions.” But it’s important to recognize that for many Uyghurs, Chinese human rights defenders, and their family members, the CCP does indeed pose an “existential threat.”

Underplaying the severity of the human rights crisis in China—or even ignoring it altogether—will only lead to resentment and a feeling of unseriousness for the victims of abuse and people who follow their stories. Even on a practical level, human rights groups, religious leaders, diaspora communities, and concerned allies will consistently put pressure on the government to do more. Beijing’s worrying record on human rights and the constant stream of untruths about how it treats its own people are also bound to raise concerns about whether it can be a good faith actor on the international stage.

Ignoring the gravity of the human rights challenge posed by the CCP, or treating it as an annoying irritant in the way of constructive relations, makes it less likely that a nuanced approach will be listened to. Foreign-policy thinkers should recognize that a forceful strategy on human rights is absolutely necessary—even if matched with actions elsewhere to ease geopolitical tensions.

Foreign Policy · by William Nee · April 7, 2023

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

V/R

David Maxwell

Senior Fellow

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Phone: 202-573-8647

Personal Email: d avid.maxwell161@gmail.com

Web Site: www.fdd.org

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Subscribe to FDD’s new podcast, Foreign Podicy

FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

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

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

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website

New Batch of Classified Documents Appear on Social Media Sites

The State of the War

DOJ opens investigation into leaks of apparent classified US military documents | CNN Politics

Leaked Ukraine War Plans Complicate Spring Counteroffensive

The classified material could provide Russia with a tactical advantage.

Ukraine, North Korea and Iran included in leaked documents

MORE: Russia-Ukraine live updates: US announces $2.6B in new security aid for Ukraine

White House, Kirby face backlash from military veterans for defense of chaotic Afghan pullout

Save Our Allies' co-founder blasted the administration, while a retired Green Beret said veterans are worried about lessons not learned.

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, APRIL 6, 2023

Tags

China’s Media and Information Warfare - The Globalist

Takeaways

Takeaways

U.S. Seeks Ways to Help Burkina Faso’s Military Junta Fight Jihadists

Officials want to counter Islamists, but U.S. law bans most security aid to military regimes

Some Ukrainian Troops are Still Using Soviet Methods, Despite US Training

Pentagon Investigates More Social-Media Posts Purporting to Include Secret U.S. Documents

Documents include details on Ukrainian forces, U.S. arms provided to Ukraine

How AI-generated content could both fuel disinformation and improve fact-checking - Poynter

The list of concerns is long, but tools like ChatGPT could also help to improve automated fact-checking.

More News

America Needs a “Cold War” Strategy for China

The Top 5 Reasons Americans Were Unfit for Military Service During World War I

Want to Learn More About Military Life?

‘Outrageous’: Russia Accused of Spreading Disinformation at U.N. Event

The State of the War

Asserting a Cyber Border

A Border Enables Defense

Some Internet Basics

A Free and Open Domain

A Way to Establish a Border in Cyberspace

Conclusion

Washington and Ike's Warning On Foreign Policy Greed

New U.S. warehouse center in Poland to store tanks, Bradleys for future fights

From Korea to Afghanistan: Special Forces Legend Billy Waugh's Amazing Career Spanned Five Decades

Getting a Taste of Combat

'Perforated with Gunshot Wounds'

At Home in the War on Terror

Army readies for record-setting logistics exercise in Pacific

Building up

Human Intel and PsyOps: Running Intelligence Operations Against the Enemy

US Special Forces FY24 Budget Request

ARGUMENT

An expert's point of view on a current event.

A Nuanced Approach to China Needs Human Rights at the Core

Calls for a rethink against groupthink can’t neglect real atrocities.

By William Nee, a research & advocacy coordinator at Chinese Human Rights Defenders.