Quotes of the Day:

"The time will come when diligent research over long periods will bring to light things which now lie hidden… Many discoveries are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been effaced."

– Seneca

"They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth." 

– John F. Kennedy

"I’m telling you a lie in a vicious effort that you will repeat my lie over and over until it becomes true." 

– Lady Gaga

1. 'Violent' leader of Columbia University's anti-Israel protest is unmasked as son of millionaire ad execs who is married to a model and lives in $3.4M Brooklyn brownstone

2. The Marine Corps That Should Have Been

3. Typically, that General is Removed By Stuart Scheller

4. Taiwan’s everywhere war

5. The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

6. Confident of victory over Ukraine, Russia exhibits Western war trophies

7. America’s Ammunition Production May Soon Be Controlled by a Foreign Buyer

8. China's territorial claims illegal, deceptive: U.S. Indo-Pacific chief

9. Taiwan chief of general staff attends US INDOPACOM handover in Hawaii

10. US officials fear miscalculation in Niger with Russian fighters

11. Drones Changed This Civil War, and Linked Rebels to the World

12. Campus Protests Give Russia, China and Iran Fuel to Exploit U.S. Divide

13. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, May 4, 2024

14. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 4, 2024

15. The anti-Israel agitators were actually outsiders – and the schools could not have handled it worse

16. This Is the Biggest Waste of Money in U.S. Military History (F-35?)

17. RUSSIA AND OTHER DISASTERS – Gaza, Ukraine, and NATO Strategy Central

18. College protests. A Trump trial. Raging wars. Is everything ‘on fire’?

19. North Korean weapons are killing Ukrainians. The implications are far bigger

1. 'Violent' leader of Columbia University's anti-Israel protest is unmasked as son of millionaire ad execs who is married to a model and lives in $3.4M Brooklyn brownstone

Proxy, useful idiot? Are they digging deeper to find out if he has any connections to foreign influence agencies?

'Violent' leader of Columbia University's anti-Israel protest is unmasked as son of millionaire ad execs who is married to a model and lives in $3.4M Brooklyn brownstone

• James Carlson, 40, is the son of Richard and Sandy Tarlow, millionaire ad execs 
• He is married to model Kim Heyrman and has two children
• James has been an activist for a more than a decade now across the country 

By ISHITA SRIVASTAVA FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 16:40 EDT, 4 May 2024 | UPDATED: 16:47 EDT, 4 May 2024

Daily Mail · by Ishita Srivastava For Dailymail.Com · May 4, 2024

The leader of the recent protests Columbia University has been revealed as the 40-year-old son of millionaire ad execs who lives in a four story Brooklyn townhouse.

James Carlson, who also goes by Cody Carlson and Cody Tarlow, was arrested by the NYPD and charged with burglary and illegal entry after he stormed Columbia's Hamilton Hall and re-named it 'Hind' Hall.

The accused, who is described as 'a long-time figure in the anarchist world' by officials, was also arrested for allegedly attacking a police officer during the violent G8 protests in San Francisco in 2005.

James is the son of Richard Tarlow and Sandy Carlson Tarlow, millionaire advertising duo who started Carlson & Partners together and were known for their cosmetic and fashion clients including Revlon, Victoria’s Secret, Ralph Lauren and Neutrogena.

James Carlson, who also goes by Cody Carlson and Cody Tarlow, was arrested by the NYPD and charged with burglary and illegal entry after he stormed Columbia's Hamilton Hall and re-named it 'Hind' Hall

James is the son of Richard Tarlow (pictured here with Kristin Kehrberg in 2018) and Sandy Carlson Tarlow (who died in 2003), millionaire advertising duo who started Carlson & Partners together and were known for their cosmetic and fashion clients including Revlon, Victoria’s Secret, Ralph Lauren and Neutrogena

The millionaire father was also a supporter of of John Jay College and the John Jay Justice Awards that recognize people and organizations who demonstrate a commitment to justice.

Richard died at the age of 81 in May 2022 while Sandy died in 2003 at the age of 53.

According to the NY Daily News, James graduated Magna Cum Laude from Brooklyn Law School and later became an animal rights lawyer who clerked at the US District Court in 2013.

He also had a short stint as an undercover investigator on factory farms and slaughterhouses recording animal abuse, according to the publication.

James is believed to be married to model Kim Heyrman and has two children while living in a $3.4 million Brooklyn brownstone townhouse in New York.

James is believed to be married to model Kim Heyrman

He also has two children and lives in a $3.4M Brooklyn brownstone townhouse in New York

James graduated Magna Cum Laude from Brooklyn Law School and later became an animal rights lawyer who clerked at the US District Court in 2013

The main house is a two-story property with four spacious bedrooms, four wood burning fireplaces with two on the parlor floor, according to Zillow.

The carriage house, on the other hand, has 18-foot-high ceilings with a loft area, skylights, electric heat for a kitchen and bath.

While in front of the main house, there is a expansive lawn and porch and between the main and carriage house is majestic garden area with a decked porch and mature trees, one with a wooden swing.

James is suspected of burning an Israeli flag during a demonstration two days ago and is believed to be 'previously involved in recent bridge and tunnel blocking', according to NBC News.

The main house is a two-story property with four spacious bedrooms, four wood burning fireplaces with two on the parlor floor

The carriage house, on the other hand, has 18 inch high ceilings with a loft area, skylights, electric heat for a kitchen and bath

Earlier this week, footage emerged of protestors smashed windows, upended furniture and caused damage throughout Hamilton Hall during the occupation before police stormed the campus and arrested more than 100 protestors Tuesday night.

Around 40 protestors were arrested on the first floor of the building after police swooped just after 9pm ending the pro-Palestine encampment that stretched on for nearly two weeks and included students taking over the hall.

Pictures and video taken of the aftermath show the hall's trashed interior strewn with activists' belongings.

Columbia's President, Minouche Shafik, called in the NYPD in to 'restore order and safety' to the campus amid the escalating protests, which also included a massive encampment on the school's lawns.

The raid saw demonstrators arrested across the campus and at nearby City College New York, where similar protests unfolded.

Columbia University protestors smashed windows, upended furniture and caused damage throughout Hamilton Hall amid their brief occupation

Images and video showed extensive damage to Hamilton Hall after protestors were evicted on Tuesday night

NYPD riot cops released dramatic video showing the moment they stormed Columbia University's occupied Hamilton Hall

Images taken after the raid show the hall's trashed with activists' belongings

NYPD cops dressed in riot gear stormed through the window of a Columbia University building occupied by dozens of pro-Palestine protestors to begin clearing them out

New York City police officers use a ramp on an armored vehicle to enter Hamilton Hall via a second-floor window at Columbia University after pro-Palestinian protestors barricaded themselves in the building

Police use a vehicle named 'the bear' to enter Hamilton Hall from a public street, which was occupied by protestors, as other officers enter the campus of Columbia University

Police stormed Hamilton Hall through an upstairs window after students used furniture to barricade the entrance.

Pictures show how chairs and desks have been turned upside down to become makeshift barriers. The cost of damage to the building is likely to total thousands of dollars.

The occupation followed weeks of unrest at Columbia, which began with the establishment of the encampment on April 17.

Protestors set up tents after Shafik was grilled before Congress about anti-Semitism on campus.

They repeatedly ignored calls to disband, with the demonstrations ramping up early Tuesday with the violent takeover of Hamilton Hall.

After two weeks of chaos, which saw classes moved online and facilities shuttered, Shafik finally called in the police who managed to clear out the campus in just two hours.

University administrators have now asked the police to maintain a presence until May 17, two days after graduation.

Daily Mail · by Ishita Srivastava For Dailymail.Com · May 4, 2024

2. The Marine Corps That Should Have Been

Conclusion:

If it had been allowed to evolve, OMFTs would have been the perfect tool to suppress threats such as the Houthis at the source. A group of retired general officers calling themselves Chowder II have put together an alternate approach to Force Design for the Corps that they call Vision 2035; much of it is based on work done before 2001. Commandants come and go, but the Marine Corps continues to look forward. Under new leadership, Vision 2035 may again include OMFTS or something like it.

The Marine Corps That Should Have Been

By Gary Anderson

May 04, 2024

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/05/04/the_marine_corps_that_should_have_been_1029510.html

Say what one wants about the Israeli incursion into Gaza, but not a single rocket or missile has been fired from what is left of it since the start of fighting. Compare this with the relative ineffectiveness of American efforts stop Yemen's Houthis from slinging missiles at shipping in the Red Sea. The difference is simply geography. The Israelis simply have to cross fencing and concrete barriers to directly confront their attackers, the Palestinians of Hamas.

If U.S. wanted to launch such a large scale punitive operation against the Houthis, it would have to be done from the sea with a large scale amphibious assault. An amphibious assault of this scale, requiring sea borne tanks, assault engineers and bridging capabilities that have been divested by the U.S. Marine Corps. Instead, the Marine Corps is building a defensive force built around anti-ship missiles designed primarily to contain the Chinese Navy.

This defensive force is a stark departure from former Marine Corps Commandant Al Gray’s vision to modernize the Marine Corps for future wars.

Back in the 1980s, General Gray had a vision for what he called Over the Horizon (OTH) operations using tilt rotor aircraft, long range helicopters, more capable long-range amphibious vehicles, and air cushioned landing craft. Gray realized that advanced defensive weapons would make traditional linear amphibious operations launched just offshore problematical, but OTH would enable landing in column in places that the enemy did not expect. Gray had the Marine Corps experiment with these capabilities. Throughout the nineties, numerous war games and field experiments took place to explore the physical and intellectual challenges. OTH gradually evolved into Operational Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS) and a whole new philosophy of littoral campaigning.

In traditional amphibious operations a relatively small portion of potential landing sites in the world's littorals were open to the kind of linear landings done at Normandy and Iwo Jima. It was relatively easy for a defender to determine which beaches were vulnerable to amphibious landings. OMFTS were designed to open over seventy percent of littorals by landing in column across remote locations such as boat ramps and small coves with access to paths inland. This made the defense against OMTFS far more difficult.

To achieve OMFTS, we planned to use a grid of small micro-robotic ground scouts located at key road intersections, choke points, and bridges. The robotic sensors would give the landing force a map to exploit the gaps in enemy defenses as well as be able to designate targets at enemy strong points and call-in accurate fire on them. We called this advanced reconnaissance and scouting system the Reconnaissance-Surveillance-Target Acquisition (RSTA) Grid. Platforms such as the V-22 Osprey and heavy lift helicopters such as the CH-53E could give a vertical over-the-horizon dimension to this "expanding torrent" of operational capability with the RSTA Grid identifying safe landing zones.

OMFTS and RSTA would only require small assault force initially that would not need an "iron mountain" of logistical supplies on the beach before moving inland. Just-in-time logistics would keep the initial landing force moving until more traditional beaches and ports could be opened by attacking them from the rear. During the initial operation, fire support would come from precision strike until more conventional artillery could come ashore.

One key element that made OMFTS different from traditional amphibious operations and more compatible with the existing Marine Corps' maneuver warfare approaches, was flexibility. Once the line of departure was crossed in traditional operations, the force was committed; it was "do or die for old Semper Fi." We saw OMFTS as giving us the ability to launch several probes. The most promising would become the main effort. The rest could be withdrawn or remain for a while as deception to confuse opposing forces. Worst case, the operation could be scrapped enabling us to choose a more promising set of operational targets without causing a Gallipoli-like debacle. 

This amphibious blitzkrieg would be led by relatively small, fast moving task-organizations comprised of elements from infantry and armored battalions. However, more traditional infantry, armored, and artillery units would be needed to defend the eventual force beachhead, assist army follow-on forces in sustained operations ashore, and potential counterinsurgency operations.

All these years of planning never led to the radically reduced Marine Corps that we have today. By 2020, there should have been newer and better tanks, artillery, and amphibious vehicles as part of ongoing Marine Corps modernization, but I came to believe that OMFTS could initially be accomplished with existing Navy LCACs, Ospreys, and CH-53Es. The Advanced Armored Amphibious Vehicle (AAAV) was a failure, but I think most of us came to believe that its absence would not be an operational "showstopper".

The real technological challenges were in the robotic sensors needed for the RSTA grid, sufficient over-the-horizon communications, some advanced naval mine clearing capabilities (with unmanned underwater systems), and some enhanced just-in-time logistics assets. None of these things were science fiction, and the technologists assured us were doable by 2020 and have been used during the current Russo-Ukrainian war.

We needed to use surrogates for war games and field experiments to simulate OMFTS.

In 1998, a small Special Purpose Marine Corps Marine Air Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) conducted an over-the-horizon landing in column from the USS Germantown across a boat ramp in Okinawa using Landing Craft Air Cushioned (LCACs) and long range CH 53 helicopters. Later that year, a MAGTF staff from III MEF used LAVs in a force-on-force operation against a Red Team led by students from the Expeditionary Warfare School -also employing LAVs- on the peninsulas of the Virginia Capes. The surrogate RSTA Grid allowed the Blue force to land in an unexpected location and maneuver quickly to defeat the Red Force. Other war games conducted during the period caused us to believe that OMFTS would provide wicked problems to future opponents. By the turn of the century, many of us in the developmental and experimental community believed that OMFTS could be fully implemented within two decades. Indeed, the technologies needed all exist today. What we did not envision was 9/11 and General Berger.

The root of the problem really goes back to 2001 and the 9/11 attacks. At that point, the George W. Bush administration undertook the war in Afghanistan and in 2003 invaded Iraq. The Marine Corps was forced put aside its work on the next Marine Corps to support the war effort, which lasted until 2019 when virtually all conventional units had left Afghanistan. Many serving and former marines hoped to finally get back to work on OMFTS, but the new commandant at the time, General David Berger, had another vision that the dubbed Force Design 2030. OMFTS might have evolved differently if General Berger had chosen that path; the name might even have changed, but OMFTS remains the Marine Corps that could have been, particularly for operations other than island hoping in China’s first island chain.

If it had been allowed to evolve, OMFTs would have been the perfect tool to suppress threats such as the Houthis at the source. A group of retired general officers calling themselves Chowder II have put together an alternate approach to Force Design for the Corps that they call Vision 2035; much of it is based on work done before 2001. Commandants come and go, but the Marine Corps continues to look forward. Under new leadership, Vision 2035 may again include OMFTS or something like it.

Gary Anderson was heavily involved in OMFTS design and experimentation as the Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab.

3. Typically, that General is Removed By Stuart Scheller

I wonder if Lt Col Scheller thinks he would be suited for the new leadership. Is he auditioning here?

Excerpts:

To be clear, current military leadership protecting a culture of failure does not necessarily mean America has a politicized military as Risa Brooks proposes in her March 2024 Foreign Affairs article, “The Creeping Politicization of the U.S. Military.” The University of California PhD, having never served in the military, is credentialed a “military expert,” because she, like many other Defense Department attachments, worked at a military academy. These elitists want to protect the current establishment and believe if the next administration removes current military leaders, it will only further weaken the military. This line of thinking is more of the same. The hard reality is that Americans cannot continue defending military leadership that clearly falls short in basic standards of competence, courage, and accountability. 

Despite the PhD’s protests, the next President must fix the culture of the military, and it starts by removing the current Defense Secretary, Chairman and all similar officers because silent obedience and incompetence should not be tolerated anymore in the American military. We need a Secretary of Defense to act like General Marshall after WWI and change the culture by firing an entire generation of archaic general officers.

Anyone believing the losing culture of the military can be changed while maintaining current military leadership should contemplate the following three questions: 

1) Was the Afghanistan Withdrawal/Evacuation a military failure?

2) Should a General Officer be fired or held accountable for losing a war?

3) Do General Officers have an obligation to publicly tell the truth while still in uniform?

A “yes” answer to any of the above question signals the need for changes in military leadership.

Yet, you won’t find these questions at any E-8 seminar because they demand critical thinking beyond what the current bosses want. Unfortunately, men with power always protect that power despite the costs to We the People. The military is no different. Openly assessing failure is the only way the military evolves.

This administration, and the silently obedient general officers, cannot change the military’s losing culture after tacitly endorsing it with their actions. New military leadership, built on the bedrock of accountability, talent, and moral courage, must be installed by the next administration.

Rebuilding our military should start with a simple phrase intended for those protecting the losing military culture, something like, “You’re fired.”

Typically, that General is Removed

By Stuart Scheller

May 04, 2024

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/05/04/typically_that_general_is_removed_1029481.html

Do general officers have an obligation to publicly tell the truth?

I have an interesting perspective on this question.

Currently, the Marine Corps teaches my story at the E-8 seminar (senior enlisted school). If you remember, I was the Marine officer who, via video, made a plea for accountability from military leaders who purposely abandoned Bagram airbase, American citizens and American military sacrifices. Shortly thereafter, I was fired, placed in solitary confinement and kicked out of the military short of my retirement. My story is not used to discuss leadership failures and operational mistakes during the Afghan withdrawal, but as a case study on why not to publicly criticize leadership.

Military culture clearly signals: Making leadership look bad is far more dangerous than obediently failing. To date, not a single military leader assumes accountability for their failures at the end of Afghanistan.

CNN recently published an article titled, “New evidence challenges the Pentagon’s account of a horrific attack as the US withdrew from Afghanistan.” It offers new video evidence and first-hand accounts of a significant gunfight following the suicide bomb attack in Kabul, during the American withdrawal. The article illustrates more facts contradicting the current political administration, and, by extension, the current military leadership’s version of events. The U.S. military conducted multiple investigations on the Abbey Gate incident, but somehow missed the evidence CNN uncovered, concluding that any gunfire was only a result of warning shots, and not part of a complex attack.

Why would military leadership want to convince parents of killed service members and the rest of the American public that ball bearings from a suicide vest were the only lethal hazard during the attack, despite video evidence demonstrating the opposite?

Objectively, because the American military failure was so complete, a singular suicide bomber not affiliated with the Taliban was less damaging to an already fragile political narrative. The “extraordinary success of this mission,” as the President called the Afghan evacuation five days after the suicide attack, was only marginally credible when echoed by obedient military leaders whom Americans still believed were capable of public honesty.

General McKenzie, the theater commander, on 30 August 2021, echoed his political leadership by calling the operation a “monumental accomplishment.” It wasn’t until two years after his retirement that he stated in a Fox News interview, “I have a lot of regrets about how it ended in Afghanistan. I regret the basic decision, which I think was the wrong decision. And I particularly regret that we did not choose to evacuate our people, our embassy personnel, or American citizens, and our at-risk Afghans, at the time we made the decision to bring out our combat forces. I think that was a serious mistake and led to the events of August 2021 directly.” He then went on to say, “I believe history will view the manner in which the Afghanistan withdrawal was conducted as a fatal flaw, and history will be very hard on that.”

While some of us may appreciate that General McKenzie finally summoned the courage to tell the truth, many others remain upset that American leadership allows military incompetence to hide behind political decisions.

General McKenzie, following the Fox News interview, testified again on 19 March 2024, to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. During the testimony he didn’t address why a military strong-point within a section of Bagram Air base wasn’t feasible with his limited numbers; or why he couldn’t use public discourse to influence obvious military operational errors. Instead, he stated, “It remains my opinion that if there is culpability in this attack, it lies in policy decisions… It does not lie with the flag officers who oversaw operations on the ground.”

Remember, in the middle of the night on 1 July 2021, under the orders of General McKenzie, military leaders at all levels allowed the abandonment of Bagram Air Base. By doing so they left behind between 5,000 and 7,000 prisoners in the detention facility. Of note, more American-hating prisoners were freed by the Taliban from that prison than the entire American military force that later responded to the self-induced crisis that took place at HKIA airfield.

Military leadership still claims that a foreign fighter slipped past the Taliban and conducted an isolated attack. But it seems much more probable that the suicide bomber and the accomplices originated from the prison on the fortified base (Bagram), which happened to be only 40 miles away from the undefendable base (HKIA airfield). A select few of these newly freed believers of the global caliphate were easily manipulated, assisted and armed by the Taliban to conduct an attack on an enemy (United States) dominating them for decades. With this understanding, it’s even more embarrassing thinking about a marginalized General McKenzie granting the Taliban complete control of the American military’s exterior security. Before the attack, General McKenzie even publicly called the Taliban “a critical partner.”

And as if the list of Afghanistan military evacuation blunders wasn’t long enough, following the complex attack at the gate, the American military conducted a retaliatory drone strike on the “ISIS-K” enemy. General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, conditioned like all other military leaders to support political narratives, quickly declared the drone strike a “righteous strike.” But weeks later, investigative reporters compelled the Defense Department to reveal that the “righteous strike” only killed women and children.

So again, should American citizens expect honesty from military leadership if the truth reflects poorly on political leadership?

The following interview reveals insights to the question. A year ago, on 29 March 2023, Congressman Jim Banks questioned Defense Secretary Austin on the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Rep. Banks: “Do you have regrets about the withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

Secretary Austin: “I support the President’s decision.”

Rep. Banks: “Do you have regrets about the withdrawal or how the withdrawal occurred from Afghanistan that cost the lives of thirteen of our service members?”

Secretary Austin: “I don’t have any regrets.”

Rep. Banks: “You don’t have any regrets, that’s very telling. Secretary Austin, has there ever been any accountability for anyone from the Department Defense for the deadly botched and embarrassing Afghanistan withdrawal? Any accountability?... Has anyone been held accountable? If a Navy Captain grounded a ship, what happens immediately?”

Secretary Austin: “Typically that Captain is removed.”

Rep. Banks: “That Captain is removed. Has anyone been held accountable for what happened in Afghanistan.”

Secretary Austin: “To my knowledge no.”

Unfortunately for Americans, Secretary Austin epitomizes the lap dog nature of current American military leadership. Secretary Austin signals to all subordinates that facts should be molded within the political narrative of the boss du jour. Other facts, like the video evidence uncovered by CNN during the complex attack at the Abbey Gate, can be quickly dismissed.

To be clear, current military leadership protecting a culture of failure does not necessarily mean America has a politicized military as Risa Brooks proposes in her March 2024 Foreign Affairs article, “The Creeping Politicization of the U.S. Military.” The University of California PhD, having never served in the military, is credentialed a “military expert,” because she, like many other Defense Department attachments, worked at a military academy. These elitists want to protect the current establishment and believe if the next administration removes current military leaders, it will only further weaken the military. This line of thinking is more of the same. The hard reality is that Americans cannot continue defending military leadership that clearly falls short in basic standards of competence, courage, and accountability. 

Despite the PhD’s protests, the next President must fix the culture of the military, and it starts by removing the current Defense Secretary, Chairman and all similar officers because silent obedience and incompetence should not be tolerated anymore in the American military. We need a Secretary of Defense to act like General Marshall after WWI and change the culture by firing an entire generation of archaic general officers.

Anyone believing the losing culture of the military can be changed while maintaining current military leadership should contemplate the following three questions: 

1) Was the Afghanistan Withdrawal/Evacuation a military failure?

2) Should a General Officer be fired or held accountable for losing a war?

3) Do General Officers have an obligation to publicly tell the truth while still in uniform?

A “yes” answer to any of the above question signals the need for changes in military leadership.

Yet, you won’t find these questions at any E-8 seminar because they demand critical thinking beyond what the current bosses want. Unfortunately, men with power always protect that power despite the costs to We the People. The military is no different. Openly assessing failure is the only way the military evolves.

This administration, and the silently obedient general officers, cannot change the military’s losing culture after tacitly endorsing it with their actions. New military leadership, built on the bedrock of accountability, talent, and moral courage, must be installed by the next administration.

Rebuilding our military should start with a simple phrase intended for those protecting the losing military culture, something like, “You’re fired.”

Stuart Scheller is a former USMC infantry officer and author of Crisis of Command: How We Lost Trust and Confidence in America’s Generals and Politicians.

4. Taiwan’s everywhere war

Excerpts:

The country he identifies with is the nationalist China that came with the Generalissimo, Chiang Kai-shek. Back then, he said, Taiwan was stronger than China both economically and militarily. “Look at them now and look at us. They have overtaken us, their drones are the best in the world,” Tseng said. “Look at Russia and Ukraine, how they fight, it’s no longer face to face. If we fight the Chinese communists, their missiles will drop, everyone will be dead, and everything will be over.”

Overcoming such despondency will be one of Pa’s greatest challenges as an officer. He has been explaining to his friends and family for years how China uses psychological warfare to instil defeatism in its opponents. “The young people today have been growing up differently, in a democracy but also with all sorts of strange things they pick up on social media,” he said. “So we have to lead them differently. We have to explain to them what we are exercising for.”

Taiwan’s everywhere war

Financial Times · by Kathrin Hille · May 3, 2024

Night was falling when sergeant Pa Wen-shan rode his motorcycle up the steep, narrow road that leads home. It had been a long journey. Four hours on the train from Chiayi, then another 45 minutes on the road from the station in Taitung, the only city on Taiwan’s remote south-east coast. Once the Pacific fell back behind him and he entered the valley where Jialan, his village, is located, a rush of cool air dried the sweat on his face. The village sits on a slim, slanted plateau. Pa, then 25, passed the baseball field where he played as a boy. The cemetery where his father was buried a month earlier. On the final ascent to his family’s home, he saw that the neighbours had started drinking. Sitting around wood fires in front of their one-storey cement houses, they called out to him: “Galawas!”

That is his name, not the Chinese name on his uniform patch, which he, like all indigenous Taiwanese, was forced to wear until recently. These were his people, the Kaaluwan tribe. But the young soldier was in no mood to join them. It was September 2012, and he had reached the end of his road. It led him back to the poor, remote village he’d been in such a hurry to leave six years earlier.

Back then, the moment he finished vocational school at the age of 19, Pa enlisted in the military. He joined the army because he was the eldest child and he wanted a stable job to help provide for his family. For the next few years, he was attached to the army’s Aviation and Special Forces Command in south-western Taiwan. He parachuted from planes and participated in assault drills. He learnt to hide, to survive, to ambush an attacker in the jungle or in the towering mountain range that runs down the island like a spine.

These mountains have long divided Taiwan into two worlds. The cities on the plains to the west, facing across the strait to China, are home to 22 million of the country’s 23.5 million people. That’s where the factories that make most of the world’s semiconductor chips are located, as well as the country’s major highways, rail lines and power plants. But on the east side of the range, farming villages perch on slim slivers of flat land between stretches of sheer cliff that drop into the ocean. Typhoons and earthquakes frequently cut off the few roads and single rail line that connects them to the west.

The only scenario for the guerrilla-like missions young Pa was training for in the special forces would be a Chinese invasion, something the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been planning and training for since 1949. That year, the troops of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan as his communist opponents toppled his Republic of China government and founded the People’s Republic of China. Neither Chiang nor the communist leader Mao Zedong had shown any interest in Taiwan until the Chinese civil war. The island had been under Japanese rule since 1895 and, even before that, it was never more than loosely attached to China. But in 1945, with the help of the US, Chiang took over Taiwan. As Chiang slipped through Mao’s fingers, the Chinese Communist party claimed Taiwan had been part of China since time immemorial. Ever since, Beijing has insisted the island must unify with China, through military force if necessary.

That threat is now being invoked almost every day. Since Taiwan became a democracy in the early 1990s, most of its people have resisted the dictum that they are part of China. But Chinese President Xi Jinping has made it clear he will not accept such self-determination. The PLA, fed on the proceeds of a 40-year economic boom, has grown into a force that vastly dwarfs that of its neighbour. American generals have warned that Xi wants the PLA to be ready to take Taiwan as soon as 2027.

In Pa’s days in the special forces, war was the furthest thing from his mind. China’s military then was nowhere close to being capable of invading the country. Taiwan’s president at the time, Ma Ying-jeou, was promoting dialogue with Beijing. And the Chinese Communist party, eyeing a path towards unification, was playing nice.

Pa enjoyed life in the military. “I was young. I had joined the special forces because I liked challenges,” he told me. He developed a sense of pride and belonging. Short, tanned and muscular, he believes indigenous Taiwanese are better suited to being soldiers than their compatriots of Chinese heritage. Living in the mountains where they are often out hunting and fishing has made them tougher, he said. Pa rose quickly through the ranks to become a non-commissioned officer.

Then came the call from home. His father, a primary school teacher, had died. His two younger sisters were still at school in the city. His mother was all alone. Pa applied for a transfer to an army unit closer to home and the morning after that September night in 2012 when he returned to Jialan, he reported to work at Taiping, a garrison a 40-minute motorcycle ride to the north.

This was a true backwater. The narrow roads to the base passed through small indigenous villages and plantations of custard apple. Backed up against the mountains, the base was often wet with drizzle from the heavy clouds that settled on the mountains in the afternoon. From beneath that grey blanket, the white buildings of Taitung City and the Pacific Ocean could be seen gleaming under the sun in the distance.

The base was home to the army’s Taitung Area Command. Its main task remains protecting Chihhang Air Base, where Taiwan’s air force would shelter part of its fighter fleet if the PLA were to invade across the strait on the other side of the island.

Previously, I didn’t think they could attack. But I began to understand that the PLA is getting stronger and stronger

Pa Wen-shan, trainee army officer

“When the Communist military didn’t have so much advanced equipment and so many ships yet, this was the rear,” Major General Tan Yong, commander of the Taitung Area Command, told me. “The Central Mountain Range was our shield, and the enemy’s weapons couldn’t reach us.” The army classes Taitung together with the outlying islands as “secondary areas”. Most officers rotate away back to western Taiwan as soon as they complete their minimum two-year deployment here.

Pa was a mechanised infantry sergeant, leading a squad of foot soldiers equipped with old rifles and ageing tanks. It was a far cry from his glamorous special forces days, but he made the best of it. Living so close to home, he became part of a close-knit group of fellow indigenous soldiers.

More than half of the 1,800 soldiers who serve at Taiping are indigenous, at least 40 of them from Jialan. “I encourage the youngsters from my tribe to join the army and brought many of them in here,” Pa said. One such soldier from his company lives to the right of his home, another to the left. In his free time, Pa often drops by the home of Huang Ting-sheng, the 42-year-old chief of another tribe in the village, who retired after 20 years in the marines. Tseng Ming-sheng, a retired policeman who lives in the house behind Pa’s family and watched him grow up, has three sons-in-law in the military.

In 2014, the army sent Pa on a year-long business administration course through which he earned a university degree. This is the entry qualification for an exam the following year that put him on the officer track, something that is still rare for indigenous Taiwanese. Then, things started changing. On March 30 2015, a Chinese H-6 bomber transited the Bashi Channel, the strait between the southern tip of Taiwan and the Philippines, and flew out into the Pacific to the east of the island. The enemy had taken its first look behind Taiwan’s mountain shield.

Over the next few months, the bombers appeared in pairs, then in packs of four, and later they came with electronic warfare planes and fighters. In November 2016, a group of Chinese warplanes flew the first full circle around Taiwan. As it cruised north, it had a panoramic view, theoretically allowing the crafts to target any point in eastern Taiwan. Warships soon followed. In April 2018, the Liaoning, China’s first aircraft carrier, held a battle drill east of Taiwan for the first time.

The men and women at Taiping realised their mountain range was no longer a shield. “Previously, I didn’t think they could attack at all, and anyway we felt safer here. But I began to understand that the PLA is getting stronger and stronger,” said Pa.

The threat had been a long time coming. For years, China had been spending more than 15 times what Taiwan did on its military, but Taiwan’s armed forces took their time to act. After the former navy commander Admiral Lee Hsi-ming took over as chief of the general staff in 2017, he proposed a new defence strategy. Instead of trying to defeat China’s vastly superior air and naval forces head-on, Taiwan should ensure that any force attempting to come ashore would be slaughtered.

The US, which supports Taiwan’s defences with arms sales and officer training, was delighted with this plan, having long urged Taipei down that road. But the military brass resisted. Lee’s concept would mean concentrating budgets on buying large numbers of relatively small weapons that would be easy to hide and move. Tsai Ing-wen, who became president in 2016, started boosting the military budget, but the generals kept spending the lion’s share on big new ships, planes and tanks.

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen (centre) during a visit to inspect reservists in Taoyuan, May 2023 © Chiang Ying-ying/AP Photo

The Pentagon made its displeasure known. Six months after the Liaoning carrier exercise in the Pacific, US and Taiwanese defence officials and weapons company executives gathered at a hotel in Annapolis for a conference. “Taiwan cannot count on Beijing’s forbearance for its security,” David Helvey, then the principal deputy assistant secretary of defence, told General Chang Guan-chung, Taiwan’s vice-minister for defence. “Taiwan [ . . . ] cannot afford to overlook preparing for the one fight it cannot afford to lose,” he said. Helvey told Chang that Taipei needed to train and organise its forces better and empower junior and non-commissioned officers to make decisions at the lowest level — a matter of survival when a military unit is cut off from communications with senior commanders.

One year later, little had changed. Admiral Lee retired, and implementation of his plan stalled. Back at Taiping, Pa’s unit continued their monotonous routine. The soldiers got shooting training every now and then, but the defence ministry was providing no more than 120 bullets per soldier, per year. Even if each one fired just 10 rounds per training session, it would be their turn only once a month. They engaged in large-scale training exercises once every 18 months and those drills were always held inside the base. The view was that bringing heavy armoured vehicles out into the field would cause too much public disturbance, Tan said.

It was only after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that the government jerked into action. Defence reforms followed quickly, strengthening the country’s reserve force and restoring one year of conscription on all Taiwanese men. Orders came down to step up shooting training and make drills more realistic. “We now go on combat readiness patrols off base four days a week,” Pa said.

He takes his soldiers to inspect every corner on the perimeter of the air base and the civilian airport they need to protect. They test which roads and back alleys their armoured vehicles fit through, and what detours to take when they hit a roadblock. His soldiers memorise the terrain of riverbeds, orchards and beaches. They learn to find their way through the countryside with maps and a compass, crucial skills if a cyber attack were to bring down mobile communications.

On base, the sound of rapid gunfire echoes across the training range every afternoon. The garrison now has 826 rounds per soldier, per year. Instead of shooting at a fixed target standing up, they kneel, lie down and fire on the run. Both the two mechanised infantry companies at Taiping have specialised sniper teams. Pa had unexpectedly found himself back on the front line.

On April 1, a dozen special forces soldiers wearing red berets scaled the fence on the eastern flank of the Taiping base. Pa’s unit was practising fending off an infiltration from a special commando force of PLA paratroopers played by other Taiping infantrymen. His soldiers sent up a commercial-use drone to get an overview. Snipers began attacking, backed by their comrades in tanks behind. A small group of soldiers used a jamming gun to bring down a drone the PLA hit team had sent up. A team of special forces stormed some shacks where the attackers were hiding out.

Such drills were starting to feel ever more real. Over the following days, Japan’s military spotted Chinese warships heading down Taiwan’s east coast, and Taiwan’s defence ministry reported between seven and nine PLA vessels and 30 warplanes near the country. Helicopters were spotted taking off from warships less than 100 nautical miles east of Taiping, drills for exactly the kind of airborne assault the April 1 exercise was envisioning.

But Pa’s confidence is at a high. He has started the six-month “regular class”, at the end of which he will become an officer. His soldiers are being equipped with electronic warfare gear and this summer, the first Harpoon anti-ship missiles procured from the US will arrive in Taiping, one of six deployment locations across the country.

If we fight the Chinese communists, their missiles will drop, everyone will be dead, and everything will be over

Tseng Ming-sheng, retired police officer

The day after the drill, we drove to Jialan, past murals depicting the soldiers who rescued villagers from the raging floods after a typhoon hit in 2009. Their uniforms bore fantasy patches combining the wings of the paratrooper symbol with the hundred-pacer, a venomous snake that is the emblem of the Rukai people Pa’s tribe belongs to. Despite the close mesh between tribe and army, many in the village told me they doubt the force is anywhere near ready to fight.

Huang Ting-sheng, the tribal chief, had friends over — all soldiers — sitting around a pot of “stinky tofu”, big chunks of fermented soya bean curd simmering in a spicy broth. Someone had brought beer. The chief gently mocked Pa’s earnestness. “I used to have this strong feeling about protecting my homeland when I first joined the force, when I was young,” he said. “But we haven’t fought a war for too long, so in the army now they just talk, they don’t do anything.”

He doubted Pa would be able to assert his authority once he made officer rank. “The flatlanders will not obey us. There is discrimination,” he said. “They are hard to lead. They may tell you to your face, or let you know some other way. You tell a soldier to sweep the floor over there, and he can spend half a day messing around but not sweeping.”

The problems exist beyond the military. Many of the people Pa wants to fight for are deeply ambivalent in their national identification. Tseng Ming-sheng, the policeman, was in a good mood watching his three grandchildren play. But he baulked at the idea that Taiwanese democracy and independence were worth fighting for. “I would rather have unification,” he said.

President Tsai has personally apologised for the wrongs done to Taiwan’s indigenous peoples by the ethnically Chinese majority and her government has supported the teaching of indigenous languages and the preservation of their cultures. But Tseng was unconvinced. After all, he said, his people, the Paiwan, were robbed of their way of life long ago when the Japanese rulers forcibly resettled them from the upper reaches of the river to Jialan in 1937. His marriage reflects that resettlement. His wife belongs to the Kanakanavu, one of the smallest tribes, and their only common language is Mandarin.

The country he identifies with is the nationalist China that came with the Generalissimo, Chiang Kai-shek. Back then, he said, Taiwan was stronger than China both economically and militarily. “Look at them now and look at us. They have overtaken us, their drones are the best in the world,” Tseng said. “Look at Russia and Ukraine, how they fight, it’s no longer face to face. If we fight the Chinese communists, their missiles will drop, everyone will be dead, and everything will be over.”

Overcoming such despondency will be one of Pa’s greatest challenges as an officer. He has been explaining to his friends and family for years how China uses psychological warfare to instil defeatism in its opponents. “The young people today have been growing up differently, in a democracy but also with all sorts of strange things they pick up on social media,” he said. “So we have to lead them differently. We have to explain to them what we are exercising for.”

Kathrin Hille is the FT’s Greater China correspondent

Follow @FTMag to find out about our latest stories first and subscribe to our podcast Life and Art wherever you listen

Financial Times · by Kathrin Hille · May 3, 2024

5. The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

Interesting that he uses the word insurrectionists.

Excerpts:

The insurrectionists who storm administration buildings, the antisemites who punch Jews, and the entitled activists who seek attention aren’t persuading anyone. Nor are they appealing to anyone’s better angels. Their tactics are naked threats to the mission of higher education.

Teachers ought to be ushering students into the world of argument and persuasion. Minds are changed by reason, not force. Progress depends on those who do the soulful, patient work of inspiring intellects. Martin Luther King Jr., America’s greatest philosopher, countered the nation’s original sin of racism by sharpening the best arguments across millennia. To win hearts, he offered hope that love could overcome injustice.

King’s approach couldn’t be more different from the abhorrent violence and destruction on display across the country’s campuses. He showed us a way protest can persuade rather than intimidate. We ought to model that for our students. We do that by recommitting to the fundamentals of free speech, consequences and genuine education. Americans get this. We want to believe in the power of education as a way to elevate human dignity. It’s time for universities to do their jobs again.

The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida

Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-adults-are-still-in-charge-at-the-university-of-florida-israel-protests-tents-sasse-eca6389b?

By Ben Sasse

May 3, 2024 5:26 pm ET

Gainesville, Fla.

Higher education has for years faced a slow-burning crisis of public trust. Mob rule at some of America’s most prestigious universities in recent weeks has thrown gasoline on the fire. Pro-Hamas agitators have fought police, barricaded themselves in university buildings, shut down classes, forced commencement cancellations, and physically impeded Jewish students from attending lectures.

Parents are rightly furious at the asinine entitlement of these activists and the embarrassing timidity of many college administrators. One parent put it bluntly: “Why the hell should anybody spend their money to send their kid to college?” Employers watching this fiasco are asking the same question.

At the University of Florida, we tell parents and future employers: We’re not perfect, but the adults are still in charge. Our response to threats to build encampments is driven by three basic truths.

First, universities must distinguish between speech and action. Speech is central to education. We’re in the business of discovering knowledge and then passing it, both newly learned and time-tested, to the next generation. To do that, we need to foster an environment of free thought in which ideas can be picked apart and put back together, again and again. The heckler gets no veto. The best arguments deserve the best counterarguments.

To cherish the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, we draw a hard line at unlawful action. Speech isn’t violence. Silence isn’t violence. Violence is violence. Just as we have an obligation to protect speech, we have an obligation to keep our students safe. Throwing fists, storming buildings, vandalizing property, spitting on cops and hijacking a university aren’t speech.

Second, universities must say what they mean and then do what they say. Empty threats make everything worse. Any parent who has endured a 2-year-old’s tantrum gets this. You can’t say, “Don’t make me come up there” if you aren’t willing to walk up the stairs and enforce the rules. You don’t make a threat until you’ve decided to follow through if necessary. In the same way, universities make things worse with halfhearted appeals to abide by existing policies and then immediately negotiating with 20-year-old toddlers.

Appeasing mobs emboldens agitators elsewhere. Moving classes online is a retreat that penalizes students and rewards protesters. Participating in live-streamed struggle sessions doesn’t promote honest, good-faith discussion. Universities need to be strong defenders of the entire community, including students in the library on the eve of an exam, and stewards of our fundamental educational mission.

Actions have consequences. At the University of Florida, we have repeatedly, patiently explained two things to protesters: We will always defend your rights to free speech and free assembly—but if you cross the line on clearly prohibited activities, you will be thrown off campus and suspended. In Gainesville, that means a three-year prohibition from campus. That’s serious. We said it. We meant it. We enforced it. We wish we didn’t have to, but the students weighed the costs, made their decisions, and will own the consequences as adults. We’re a university, not a daycare. We don’t coddle emotions, we wrestle with ideas.

Third, universities need to recommit themselves to real education. Rather than engage a wide range of ideas with curiosity and intellectual humility, many academic disciplines have capitulated to a dogmatic view of identity politics. Students are taught to divide the world into immutable categories of oppressors and oppressed, and to make sweeping judgements accordingly. With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity, much of what passes for sophisticated thought is quasireligious fanaticism.

The results are now on full display. Students steeped in this dogma chant violent slogans like “by any means necessary.” Any? Paraglider memes have replaced Che Guevara T-shirts. But which paragliders—the savages who raped teenage girls at a concert? “From the river to the sea.” Which river? Which sea?

Young men and women with little grasp of geography or history—even recent events like the Palestinians’ rejection of President Clinton’s offer of a two-state solution—wade into geopolitics with bumper-sticker slogans they don’t understand. For a lonely subset of the anxious generation, these protest camps can become a place to find a rare taste of community. This is their stage to role-play revolution. Posting about your “allergen-free” tent on the quad is a lot easier than doing real work to uplift the downtrodden.

Universities have an obligation to combat this ignorance with rigorous teaching. Life-changing education explores alternatives, teaches the messiness of history, and questions every truth claim. Knowledge depends on healthy self-doubt and a humble willingness to question self-certainties. This is a complicated world because fallen humans are complicated. Universities must prepare their students for the reality beyond campus, where 330 million of their fellow citizens will disagree over important and divisive subjects.

The insurrectionists who storm administration buildings, the antisemites who punch Jews, and the entitled activists who seek attention aren’t persuading anyone. Nor are they appealing to anyone’s better angels. Their tactics are naked threats to the mission of higher education.

Teachers ought to be ushering students into the world of argument and persuasion. Minds are changed by reason, not force. Progress depends on those who do the soulful, patient work of inspiring intellects. Martin Luther King Jr., America’s greatest philosopher, countered the nation’s original sin of racism by sharpening the best arguments across millennia. To win hearts, he offered hope that love could overcome injustice.

King’s approach couldn’t be more different from the abhorrent violence and destruction on display across the country’s campuses. He showed us a way protest can persuade rather than intimidate. We ought to model that for our students. We do that by recommitting to the fundamentals of free speech, consequences and genuine education. Americans get this. We want to believe in the power of education as a way to elevate human dignity. It’s time for universities to do their jobs again.

Mr. Sasse is president of the University of Florida.

Appeared in the May 4, 2024, print edition as 'The Adults Are Still in Charge at the University of Florida'.

6. Confident of victory over Ukraine, Russia exhibits Western war trophies

Confident of victory over Ukraine, Russia exhibits Western war trophies

The exhibition comes just ahead of a May 9 Victory Day celebration that is very different from last year’s, when Russia was facing battlefield setbacks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/05/04/russia-war-trophies-ukraine-moscow/

By Robyn Dixon and Natalia Abbakumova

May 4, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

A Russian service member stands in front of a fighting vehicle and tank captured in Ukraine, displayed in Moscow on April 28. (Sergei Ilnitsky/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

With the annual celebration of its victory over Nazi Germany and President Vladimir Putin’s inauguration for a fifth term just ahead, Russia has mounted a month-long exhibition of military equipment captured in the war in Ukraine with the message that even as it fights the entire “collective West,” victory is inevitable.

The exhibition at Moscow’s Victory Museum on Poklonnaya Hill comes just before a May 9 Victory Day celebration that could not be more different from last year’s, when Russia was facing battlefield setbacks and a Ukrainian summer counteroffensive powered by new Western military equipment. Instead, this year, Ukrainian forces have been driven out of several front-line villages as weapons supplies have stalled.

The Victory Day celebration has grown in political importance with the invasion and the increased militarization of Russian society, as Putin seeks to equate Ukraine’s leaders with World War II Nazis and portray Russia as a nation saving the world with its “special military operation.”

The “trophies,” which included an American M1 main battle tank, were surrounded by dozens of red flags bearing the word “Victory!” It was an exhibition full of contradictions: there was triumphalism that Russia had captured the Western military equipment, even as the propagandists sneered at its quality, as if capturing them was not a challenge.

Putin is riding high after a March election decried by Western governments as flawed that delivered him at least six more years in power and the battlefield advances in Ukraine, and he is brimming with confidence ahead of his inauguration on Tuesday and the Victory Day parade two days after.

With Ukraine still hampered by weapons and personnel shortages, Russian forces are besieging the strategically important town of Chasiv Yar, an elevated location that could open the way to further advances. The United States passed a long-delayed $60 billion military aid package last month, but its effect has yet to be felt on the battlefield.

People walk by an image of a Russian soldier at an exhibition of weapons seized by the Russian army in Moscow. (Yuri Kochetkov/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitsky, deputy head of Ukrainian military intelligence, told the Economist that the fall of Chasiv Yar was probably a matter of time, adding that Ukraine’s position was as bad as it had been since the first days of the invasion.

More than 30 pieces of military hardware from 12 countries were displayed at the exhibition, marked with the flags of their origin countries, including the U.S. Abrams tank, an M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, a German Leopard 2 tank, and British Husky and Mastiff armored vehicles, as well as U.S. howitzers.

Many of these were sent with great fanfare to Ukraine for its much vaunted summer offensive, which later bogged down against heavy Russian defenses.

“Our victory is inevitable,” trumpeted the billboards around the venue.

A Russian service member stands by a sign that says “our victory is inevitable” in Moscow on April 28. (Sergei Ilnitsky/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

The Kremlin and Russian military have used propaganda and repression throughout the war to depict Ukraine as not a real country but part of Russia and led by “Nazis.” Russia criminalized criticism of the military and suppressed its own war casualty figures, estimated by U.S. intelligence at more than 300,000 killed and wounded.

Russia on Friday sentenced antiwar activist Angel Nikolayev in the far-eastern city of Khabarovsk to 15 years in prison for alleged terrorism and grave desecration in relation to antiwar activism, including setting fire to a military enlistment office and painting flags on the graves of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine. The prosecution charged that the symbols Nikolayev painted were “visually similar to Nazi symbols,” a claim he denied. 

At the exhibition, a Russian soldier with the call sign Syria and armed with a collapsible pointer stick, explained the features of the Abrams tank to visitors and journalists, pointing at shrapnel holes in the vehicle.

The Abrams was “no miracle weapon,” he said in video aired by TV Zvezda, owned and run by the Russian Ministry of Defense. “There is also a political context here: Here it is, this vehicle in the center of Moscow, bowing to the Russian soil.

“An American tank in the center of Moscow during the May holidays is not at all what [the enemy] would like to see there. Especially when our most important holiday — Victory Day — is approaching.”

A service member with the call sign Java prodded at the M2 Bradley, claiming that it was poorly designed for the Ukraine operation and often sank into the soil.

In Moscow, people view an M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle captured by Russian troops in Ukraine. (Yuri Kochetkov/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

Zvezda TV anchor Irina Losik claimed without evidence that many Western journalists had written about “what a colossal humiliation this exhibition of trophies on Poklonnaya Hill is for the entire NATO bloc,” adding that Russian engineers would take the vehicles apart to learn about them.

“This equipment has not even had time to fight in the war. This is a confirmation of my words that the machinery is defeatable, with poor cross-country ability, and is expensive to maintain,” Losik said. Ukraine’s military, she claimed, often abandoned Western military vehicles that “get stuck in the first puddle in the fields.”

While January polling by Levada Center, an independent polling agency, indicates that most Russians — 52 percent — want an end to the war, support for the actions of Russia’s military in Ukraine also remains high at 77 percent, with the same percentage convinced that the war will end in Russian victory.

Share

The exhibition appears partly designed to convey to Russians the difference between May 2023, when Russian forces had suffered successive retreats and setbacks, and now. In last year’s scaled-back parade, only one World War II-era T-34 tank was displayed.

Since then, Russia has ramped up military production, prevented Ukraine’s breakthrough to the southern coast during the counteroffensive last year, and made advances.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu claimed Friday that Russia had taken control of 547 square kilometers of territory in occupied Ukraine since early January, referring to the region as the “new Russian territories.”

By Robyn Dixon

Robyn Dixon is a foreign correspondent on her third stint in Russia, after almost a decade reporting there beginning in the early 1990s. In November 2019 she joined The Washington Post as Moscow bureau chief.  Twitter

By Natalia Abbakumova

Natalia Abbakumova is a researcher for The Washington Post's Moscow Bureau.

7. America’s Ammunition Production May Soon Be Controlled by a Foreign Buyer

Excerpts:

What is the best deal for the U.S.?

The best deal for the U.S. is a higher offer from MNC so Vista’s American shareholders get more cash, and an invitation to GSG to invest that $1.9 billion in greenfield ammunition plants in the U.S. which, as new facilities, will compete with existing manufacturers and ensure government and private buyers in the U.S. get the best deal. Also investing in the U.S. may turn CSG’s challengers on the Hill into champions if the firm can create jobs in the U.S. while contributing to the robustness of America’s defense industrial base.

America’s Ammunition Production May Soon Be Controlled by a Foreign Buyer

.

By James Durso

https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/05/04/americas_ammunition_production_may_soon_be_controlled_by_a_foreign_buyer_1029491.html

In October 2023, the Czechoslovak Group (CSG), of Prague, Czech Republic, entered into a definitive agreement to buy the ammunition brands of Vista Outdoor Inc. for $1.9 billion. Vista is an outdoor sports company that specializes in outdoor products, i.e., camp equipment, and shooting sports, i.e., ammunition.

The deal would give CSG control 70% of the manufacturing capacity for ammunition primers, ownership of ammunition brands Federal, Remington, Speer, CCI, Hevi-Shot, and Alliant Powder, and management of the U.S. Army’s Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The transaction was criticized by U.S. Senators J.D. Vance and John Kennedy, Representatives Mike Waltz and Clay Higgins, and the National Sheriffs Association. (CSG currently has a 70% stake in Italian munition maker Fiocchi Munizioni which is widely available in the U.S.)

In February, U.S.-based MNC Capital Partners and a private equity partner made their first offer to buy Vista for $35.00 per share in cash for both the outdoor products and ammunition pieces. The offer was rejected by the Vista board in March.)

The senators claim the deal will put a foreign company that has ties to Russia and China in control of primer production, and at the helm of the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, a government-owned, contractor-operated producer of small arms ammunition for the U.S. government and civilian buyers.

The acquisition must be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and Senator Kennedy asked Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that CFIUS will “carefully examine national security concerns of the proposed acquisition.” 

In response to the legislators, Michal Strnad the CEO of CSG, claimed CSG was a significant supplier to NATO countries, “has never had any ties to Putin's regime,” only ever exported civilian products to Russia, never broke any embargoes, and has never been sanctioned. Strnad then invited Senator Vance to “visit SG member companies in the U.S. and Europe to experience first-hand who we really are.”

CSG’s American ammunition division CEO David Stepan announced that CSG had “publicly stated our pledge to maintain Vista’s manufacturing operations in the United States, led by the same topflight American management team that runs its operation today.”

“We have no plans,” Stepan added, “to move any employment or production overseas.”

On the other hand, Czech media reports a CSG subsidiary supplied surveillance radars to a Chinese airfield, and, when Michal Strnad’s father, Jaroslav, ran Excalibur Army, a CSG predecessor, the company breached an arms embargo on Azerbaijan, according to Forbes, so CFIUS and its security service partners have some digging to do.

Assuming everyone is being high-minded here, what are next steps?

First, CRIUS must decide on CSG’s fitness as a buyer of Vista, which will mean plumbing the senators’ concerns about Russia and China connections.

The Pentagon has a vote in CFIUS and it has recently revived concerns about lack of competition in the defense sector. In a 2022 report, “State of Competition within the Defense Industrial Base,” the Pentagon identified munitions are one of five “Priority Industrial Base Sectors” and declared “Each M&A [mergers and acquisitions] case should be reviewed carefully for negative effects on competition.”

The Pentagon also reviewed the surety of its supply chains and in another recent report, “Securing Defense-Critical Supply Chains,” the department recommended action to “Mitigate Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI).” Looking at potential conflicts in Europe and Asia, and the ongoing resupply of Israel and Ukraine, the Defense Department may want to ensure as much ammunition production as possible is controlled by American entities.

Then, the shareholders of Vista will vote and, as many of the shareholders, such as Blackrock, are playing with someone else’s money, they won’t rush if they can get a better, all-cash offer that is likely to be approved by the feds. In any case, Vista management understands its duty and told MNC it must improve its revised offer of $37.50 a share in cash for the ammunition and outdoor products brands.

According to Reuters, “While CSG’s proposal pays off Vista's debt, gives shareholders $750 million in cash, and leaves perhaps $150 million for a special dividend, according to Roth analysts, that only totals up to about $15.50 per share, and investors are left owning a sub-scale outdoor business. MNC's offer gets them $37.50 per share, cash, and a way out.”

What are some options?

CFIUS can green-light the CSG offer with no conditions, or the U.S. may allow the acquisition to proceed if CSG divests itself of enough of its new holdings that satisfies the government that marketplace competition is preserved. Or, the U.S. may require naming a proxy board to head the new companies, or a Special Security Arrangement to ensure U.S. interests in the Lake City plant are safeguarded. 

The U.S. has no beef with foreign buyers. In 2021, Colt’s Manufacturing Company of Hartford, Connecticut, the maker of the military’s M-16 and M-4 rifles, was bought by Prague-based Česká zbrojovka Group (CZ). FN Firearms USA, a supplier to the Pentagon, is owned by Belgian FN Herstal SA. And PMC Ammunition Inc., a supplier to many police agencies, is owned by Korea’s Poongsan Corporation. This deal is foundering on elevated Pentagon and congressional concerns about competition and supply chain integrity, and ongoing resupply commitments to foreign partners.

What is the best deal for the U.S.?

The best deal for the U.S. is a higher offer from MNC so Vista’s American shareholders get more cash, and an invitation to GSG to invest that $1.9 billion in greenfield ammunition plants in the U.S. which, as new facilities, will compete with existing manufacturers and ensure government and private buyers in the U.S. get the best deal. Also investing in the U.S. may turn CSG’s challengers on the Hill into champions if the firm can create jobs in the U.S. while contributing to the robustness of America’s defense industrial base.

James Durso @james_durso is a regular commentator on foreign policy and national security who served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years and has worked in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

8. China's territorial claims illegal, deceptive: U.S. Indo-Pacific chief

Going further than the gray zone would seem to be conflict if we define the gray zone as the space between peace and war below the threshold of large scale combat operations.

As an aside I am very impressed that the Admiral talks about our allies this way.

Note the new term and acronym form our Philippine allies:

"My friend Gen. Brawner from the Republic of the Philippines ... has renamed gray zone, which sounds otherwise benign and dull, into ICAD, which is illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive," Paparo said. 

"This demonstrates the wisdom of our allies and partners," he said.

China's territorial claims illegal, deceptive: U.S. Indo-Pacific chief

Adm. Samuel Paparo says Beijing's actions go further than 'gray zone'

KEN MORIYASU, Nikkei Asia diplomatic correspondent

May 4, 2024 11:06 JST

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/China-s-territorial-claims-illegal-deceptive-U.S.-Indo-Pacific-chief?f

WASHINGTON -- China's intrusive and expansionist claims in the Indo-Pacific are "illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive," the new commander of the Indo-Pacific Command said Friday at a change of command ceremony in Hawaii.

U.S. Navy Adm. Samuel Paparo, who relieved Adm. John Aquilino at the ceremony, said China's actions go beyond the standard phrase of "gray zone."

"My friend Gen. Brawner from the Republic of the Philippines ... has renamed gray zone, which sounds otherwise benign and dull, into ICAD, which is illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive," Paparo said. He was referring to Gen. Romeo Brawner, chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

"This demonstrates the wisdom of our allies and partners," he said.

He pointed to Russia, North Korea and violent extremist organizations as also falling into the category.

Paparo took command of Indo-Pacom, the oldest, largest and arguably the most important of America's six combatant commands. Covering an area that spans from Hawaii to India, the Indo-Pacom is the primary command tasked with deterring China.

"Indo-Pacom, together with our partners, is positioned to deny and defend against attempts to break the peace accorded by the international rules-based order," Paparo said.

The "intrusive and expansionist claims" that he spoke about include the "Nine-dash line," a U-shaped line that Beijing uses on maps to assert sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea.

In July 2016, a Hague tribunal overwhelmingly backed the Philippines, determining that major elements of China's claim, including the nine-dash line and its land reclamation activities, were unlawful.

"We will work in concert with allies and partners and our joint teammates to preserve the free and open Indo-Pacific, itself a phrase coined by the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe," Paparo said, mentioning the former Japanese leader.

"We'll strive for the peaceful resolution of any crisis or conflict, but make no mistake ... we will be ready to fight any adversary that threatens the peace, security, stability and well-being of the nation and of our allies and partners," he said.

Paparo, like Aquilino before him, is a graduate of the elite Navy Fighter Weapons School, known as "Top Gun." He has spent 37 years in the navy, but also has experience serving in other branches of the military, including flying F-15C fighters in Saudi Arabia and Iceland for the air force. He was also part of a reconstruction team in Afghanistan for the army.

9. Taiwan chief of general staff attends US INDOPACOM handover in Hawaii

And ICAD is getting a lot of press.

I wonder if China will respond to the presence of the Taiwan chief of general staff. It appears from the photo in the link that he is not in uniform. I think it's time to stop this practice and allow the Taiwan military to wear their uniforms in the US.

Excerpt:

He also lambasted China’s aggressive behavior in the region, using the terms “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive” (ICAD) to describe Beijing’s claims over Indo-Pacific areas, according to Nikkei Asia. Paparo said the expression was coined by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Romeo Brawner.

Taiwan chief of general staff attends US INDOPACOM handover in Hawaii

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5679743

New INDOPACOM chief slams China's aggressive behavior

May. 4, 2024 19:32

Matthew Strong

Taiwan News, Staff Writer

After language and country studies in Europe, Matthew Strong worked as a writer, reporter and broadcaster in Taiwan for over 25 years, reporting on politics, earthquakes and movies for radio station ICRT, The Associated Press, Asiaweek, and The Hollywood Reporter before joining Taiwan News.

Taiwan Chief of General Staff Mei Chia-shu (in red circle) at INDOPACOM handover Friday. (Facebook, INDOPACOM photo)

6040

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) – The Chief of General Staff Admiral Mei Chia-shu (梅家樹) attended the handover ceremony of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) to Adm. Samuel Paparo in Hawaii, reports said Saturday (May 4).

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin presided over Friday’s (May 3) ceremony at the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. Over the past three years, INDOPACOM was led by Adm. John Aquilino.

Mei’s presence at the event showed how close military relations are between the two countries, the Liberty Times reported. In his address, Paparo said he would work closely with U.S. allies to defend peace in the region based on the rule of law, and that he would oppose any plans to disrupt that peace.

He also lambasted China’s aggressive behavior in the region, using the terms “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive” (ICAD) to describe Beijing’s claims over Indo-Pacific areas, according to Nikkei Asia. Paparo said the expression was coined by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Romeo Brawner.

10. US officials fear miscalculation in Niger with Russian fighters

US officials fear miscalculation in Niger with Russian fighters

By ERIN BANCO and LARA SELIGMAN

05/03/2024 03:59 PM EDT

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/03/us-officials-fear-miscalculation-niger-russian-presence-00156046?utm

Politico

The U.S. military is also concerned about spying on American troops.

In this photo taken April 16, 2018, a U.S. and Niger flag are raised side by side at the base camp for air forces and other personnel supporting the construction of Niger Air Base 201 in Agadez, Niger. | Carley Petesch/AP Photo

05/03/2024 03:59 PM EDT

Biden administration officials are increasingly worried that rogue Russian soldiers in Niger will take actions to antagonize U.S. troops in the country, forcing the U.S. to respond.

They’re concerned that the Russian fighters — who are stationed at the same air base as American troops in the capital of Niamey — will engage in disruptive behavior such as driving aggressively or harassing U.S. troops at checkpoints, according to two officials familiar with Western intelligence.

The intelligence, they stressed, shows that Russian soldiers pose no immediate threat to the U.S. troops. But even small hostile encounters would increase the risk of a confrontation that could result in an exchange of fire.

The officials, and others, were granted anonymity to speak freely about sensitive intelligence.

The Russian and American soldiers have been residing in the same location — Base 101, which is attached to Niamey’s international airport — for weeks. The Russian fighters began arriving in April at the invitation of Niger’s military junta, soon after it called for the dissolution of the agreement that governed the U.S. troop presence in the country. U.S. troops are making preparations to leave Niger, but do not have specific dates by which they need to leave, a Defense Department official said.

Skirmishes between U.S. and Russian troops in Niger would significantly escalate tensions between the two countries at a time when their relationship is increasingly strained over the war in Ukraine. The last time U.S. and Russian troops were stationed in such close proximity in Syria, the two sides engaged in an intense firefight that threatened to pull the two sides into a direct conflict.

There are between 60 and 100 Russians in Niamey, said the first DOD official.

U.S. officials tried to work out a deal with the country’s military junta that would allow them to stay in the country, pushing its leaders to agree to a roadmap that would eventually lead to a return to democratic rule. While U.S. officials are still attempting to negotiate, the junta has so far refused to agree to those terms and pulled in Russian paramilitaries to help train its troops and provide arms.

The presence of Russian paramilitary fighters at the same base as U.S. troops is symbolic of the broader problem the Biden administration faces in Africa. Moscow is increasingly forging partnerships with coup governments, providing arms and security to militaries at a time when U.S. law prohibits such support.

The National Security Council and the CIA declined to comment. Spokespeople for the Russian and Nigerien embassies did not respond to requests for comment.

Many are members of what was formerly known as the Wagner force, formerly led by Russian mercenary Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin. Following his death in August 2023, Moscow folded thousands of those fighters into new and existing paramilitary groups aligned with its military and intelligence services. Now, Russian President Vladimir Putin is using those fighters to help boost Russia’s presence on the continent.

U.S. officials believe the paramilitary group in Niger will also engage in political missions at the direction of Moscow to encourage the Nigerien government to interfere with the U.S. mission in Niamey and try to force the withdrawal of American personnel from the country.

The Russian forces are in Niamey to train and advise the Nigerien armed forces. One of the two U.S. officials said the Russians are expected to help the Nigerien soldiers train on air defenses.

The Pentagon is confident in its force protection measures and assesses the Russian troops are not looking to clash with Americans. But DOD officials are concerned that the Russian forces could also try to gather intelligence on the American capabilities.

“The concern is more along the lines of intel. Obviously they are eyes on the ground and they have the ability to monitor,” said a second DOD official. “We obviously don’t love that they are there, but it’s not our country.”

U.S. officials are also concerned that the Russian forces will be in position to take over American compounds and equipment when and if U.S. troops withdraw, said a second DOD official.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Thursday confirmed reports that Russian forces had moved into Air Base 101, a Nigerien Air Force Base that is co-located with Niamey’s international airport. The Russians are in a separate compound and don’t have access to U.S. forces or equipment, he said.

“I’m always focused on the safety and the protection of our troops, something that we’ll continue to watch. But right now, I don’t see a significant issue here in terms of our force protection,” Austin said, speaking at a joint press conference with his Australian, Japanese and Philippine counterparts in Honolulu, Hawaii.

U.S. officials are more broadly concerned that the Russian forces will seek to exploit Nigerien people and resources, as they have done in other unstable African nations. As some of those countries have looked to Kremlin-backed proxy groups like Wagner to provide security, the problem actually gets “manifestly worse,” said one U.S. military official, citing “dramatic increases of violence against civilians and worsening violent extremism.”

POLITICO

Politico

11. Drones Changed This Civil War, and Linked Rebels to the World

Excerpts:

Many also take advantage of the original use of these hobbyist gadgets: the video footage they take. In Ukraine and Myanmar alike, kill videos are set to heart-pumping music and spread on social media to boost morale and help raise money.

“It’s exponential growth, and it’s taking place everywhere,” said Samuel Bendett, a fellow at the Center for New American Security who studies drone warfare. “You can get on YouTube and learn how to assemble, on Telegram you can get a sense of tactics and tips on pilot training.”

In Myanmar, both sides have come to fear the whir of the propeller blades agitating the air above them. But without the air power of the junta, the resistance must rely far more on drones as they fight to overthrow the army and win some sort of civilian rule. Rebel-operated drones have helped capture Myanmar military outposts just by hovering overhead and spooking soldiers into fleeing. They have terrorized the trenches. And they have made possible sweeping offensives into junta-controlled territory, targeting police stations and small army bases.

As his rebel unit’s most skillful pilot, Mr. Shan Gyi said he had racked up dozens of successful strikes by flying drones with gentle flicks of joysticks on a video game controller. Bigger homemade drones can carry almost 70 pounds of bombs that can blow up a house. Most, though, are smaller and carry several 60 millimeter mortar shells, enough to kill soldiers.

“I didn’t play video games as a boy,” Mr. Shan Gyi said. “When I hit the bull’s-eye on the battlefield, I feel so happy.”

Drones Changed This Civil War, and Linked Rebels to the World

The New York Times · by Paul Mozur · May 4, 2024

Consumer technologies are altering the course of the battle in Myanmar, and rebel drone units are taking notes on Ukraine and other conflicts.

Members of a Karenni Nationalities Defense Force drone team, including the commander, 3D, at far left, and the pilot, Ko Shan Gyi, working the controls, as they test a drone at a resistance force base in Karenni State, Myanmar, in February.

By Hannah Beech and

Photographs by Adam Ferguson

Hannah Beech reported from Karenni State, in Myanmar, and Paul Mozur from Taipei, Taiwan.

May 4, 2024, 12:01 a.m. ET

In flip-flops and shorts, one of the finest soldiers in a resistance force battling the military junta in Myanmar showed off his weaponry. It was, he apologized, mostly in pieces.

The rebel, Ko Shan Gyi, glued panels of plastic shaped by a 3D printer. Nearby, electrical innards foraged from Chinese-made drones used for agricultural purposes were arrayed on the ground, their wires exposed as if awaiting surgery.

Other parts needed to construct homemade drones, including chunks of Styrofoam studded with propellers, crowded a pair of leaf-walled shacks. Together, they could somewhat grandly be considered the armory of the Karenni Nationalities Defense Force. A laser cutter was poised halfway through carving out a flight control unit. The generator powering the workshop had quit. It wasn’t clear when there would be electricity again.

Despite the ragtag conditions, rebel drone units have managed to upend the power balance in Myanmar. By most measures, the military that wrested power from a civilian administration in Myanmar three years ago is far bigger and better equipped than the hundreds of militias fighting to reclaim the country. The junta has at its disposal Russian fighter jets and Chinese missiles.

But with little more than instructions crowdsourced online and parts ordered from China, the resistance forces have added ballast to what might seem a hopelessly asymmetrical civil war. The techniques they are using would not be unfamiliar to soldiers in Ukraine, Yemen or Sudan.

The map locates Karenni State, a state in eastern Myanmar, adjacent to Thailand’s northwestern border. It also locates Myanmar’s capital, Naypyidaw, which is west of Karenni State.

By The New York Times

Across the world, the new abilities packed into consumer technology are changing conflict. Starlink connections provide internet. 3-D printers can mass produce parts. But no single product is more important than the cheap drone.

In Gaza last year, Hamas used low-cost drones to blind Israel’s surveillance-studded checkpoints. In Syria and Yemen, drones fly alongside missiles, forcing American troops to make difficult decisions about whether to use expensive countermeasures to swat down a $500 toy. On both sides of the war in Ukraine, innovation has turned the unassuming drone into a human-guided missile.

The world’s outgunned forces are often learning from each other. Drone pilots in Myanmar describe turning to groups on chat apps like Discord and Telegram to download 3-D printing blueprints for fixed-wing drones. They also gain insight on how to hack through the default software on commercial drones that could give away their locations.

Drones and hardware at a rebel base in Karenni State in February.

Many also take advantage of the original use of these hobbyist gadgets: the video footage they take. In Ukraine and Myanmar alike, kill videos are set to heart-pumping music and spread on social media to boost morale and help raise money.

“It’s exponential growth, and it’s taking place everywhere,” said Samuel Bendett, a fellow at the Center for New American Security who studies drone warfare. “You can get on YouTube and learn how to assemble, on Telegram you can get a sense of tactics and tips on pilot training.”

In Myanmar, both sides have come to fear the whir of the propeller blades agitating the air above them. But without the air power of the junta, the resistance must rely far more on drones as they fight to overthrow the army and win some sort of civilian rule. Rebel-operated drones have helped capture Myanmar military outposts just by hovering overhead and spooking soldiers into fleeing. They have terrorized the trenches. And they have made possible sweeping offensives into junta-controlled territory, targeting police stations and small army bases.

As his rebel unit’s most skillful pilot, Mr. Shan Gyi said he had racked up dozens of successful strikes by flying drones with gentle flicks of joysticks on a video game controller. Bigger homemade drones can carry almost 70 pounds of bombs that can blow up a house. Most, though, are smaller and carry several 60 millimeter mortar shells, enough to kill soldiers.

“I didn’t play video games as a boy,” Mr. Shan Gyi said. “When I hit the bull’s-eye on the battlefield, I feel so happy.”

‘A Tech Disrupter-Type Mind-Set’

The head of the militia’s drone unit — he goes by the nom de guerre 3D because of his success at printing drone parts — might seem an atypical rebel. A computer technology graduate, 3D recalled the first time he assembled a 3-D printer during his college years.

“Not so hard,” he said.

Looking to make use of his skills when he joined the resistance movement, he first tried to print rifles. When they did not work well, he turned his attention to drones, which he had read were redefining warfare in other parts of the world.

“They had a tech disrupter-type mind-set,” said Richard Horsey, a senior Myanmar adviser at the International Crisis Group. “A lot of innovation happened.”

Mr. Shan Gyi, right, speaking with a member of his team in January in Karenni State.

As 3D set out to build his fighting force, he had no training manual. Instead, he consulted with other young civilians setting up similar units across Myanmar. After the coup and brutally suppressed protests in 2021, young people who had grown up in a digitally connected Myanmar took to the jungle to fight.

Though none of his team’s 10 pilots had flown drones before the coup, they delved into online chat rooms, learning how to convert drones designed to spray pesticides for a more lethal use — against humans.

“The internet is very useful,” 3D said. “If we want, we can talk to people everywhere, in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria.”

Dozens of drone units are scattered across Myanmar, and a few are all-female. In 2022, Ma Htet Htet joined a militia fighting in central Myanmar.

“I was assigned to a cooking role because they hesitated to put me on the front lines simply because I’m a girl,” she said.

Last year, Ms. Htet Htet, now 19, joined a drone unit. The work put her on the front lines, since drone pilots must operate from the heat of a conflict zone. Her unit’s 26-year-old leader is still recovering from shrapnel injuries she sustained during battle. The women make their own bombs, mixing TNT and aluminum powder, then layer metal balls and gunpowder around the volatile core.

From October 2021 to June 2023, the nonprofit organization Centre for Information Resilience verified 1,400 online videos of drone flights carried out by groups fighting the Myanmar military, the majority of which were attacks. By early 2023, the group said it was documenting 100 flights per month.

Over time, drone use has shifted from off-the-shelf quadcopters made by companies like DJI to a broader mix, including improvised drones like the ones 3D makes.

A Game of Cat-and-Mouse

Recently, 3D went on a shopping spree. He was seeking a solution perfected in the trenches of Ukraine’s front lines for a problem he and his pilots were facing: Russian-made jammers that could take out drones by blocking their signals.

Within a few months of 3D forming his drone army, the junta started using jamming technology from China and Russia to scramble the GPS signals that guide drones to their targets.

3D has been searching for ways to fight back. When the Myanmar army sends up its drones to pursue rebel fighters, it must pause the jamming, opening a window through which he can dispatch his own aerial fleet, too.

Newer first-person-view drones, or F.P.V.s, offer another potential solution to the problem of getting through electronic defenses. Hobbyist racing drones repurposed into human-piloted weapons, the F.P.V.s can be less vulnerable to jamming because they are manually controlled rather than guided by GPS, and they can sometimes be piloted around the interference emitted by drone defenses.

A video of a successful drone strike against junta forces by Mr. Shan Gyi on Jan. 26.

The newer drones have reshaped the conflict in Ukraine, and parts to make F.P.V.s have been dribbling in to the Myanmar rebels in recent months. But they are much harder to fly than conventional drones, operated with goggles that allow the pilot to see from the perspective of the drone. In Ukraine, pilots often train for hundreds of hours on simulators before getting the chance to fly in combat.

On a recent afternoon when the rebel force’s generator was working, one drone pilot, Ko Sai Laung, sat in a bamboo shack sharpening his skills on a laptop loaded with Ukrainian drone simulation software.

He cradled a joystick in his hands, occasionally wiping away the sweat trickling down his face as he piloted a virtual drone above simulated Ukrainian farmland toward Russian tanks. He crashed and crashed again.

“I’m tired,” he said, rubbing his eyes. “But I have to keep practicing.”

Targeting the Capital

On April 4, a shadow Myanmar government formed by ousted lawmakers and others announced that a fleet of drones, launched by a pro-democracy armed group, had attacked three targets in Myanmar’s capital: the military headquarters, an air base and the house of Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, the junta leader.

Despite the shadow government’s excitement, none of the kamikaze drones caused significant damage that day. An analysis by The New York Times of satellite imagery found no apparent evidence of smoke, burning or other signs of a successful strike.

Still, the simple act of flying drones so close to the nerve center of Myanmar’s military is itself a potent psychological weapon. Naypyidaw, Myanmar’s capital, was built from scratch in the early 2000s as a fortress city.

Mr. Shan Gyi, left, said he had conducted dozens of successful drone strikes against Myanmar’s army.

The objective of the drone strike on Naypyidaw, said Dr. Sasa, a spokesman for the shadow government, was not so much to kill but to send a signal to the junta that it “should not feel comfortable freely roaming in and out.”

Such operations, however, are a one-way mission for the painstakingly built drones, and can require sacrificing dozens of them at a time in the hope that even one might make it through defenses. The opposition fighters lack ample financing and a reliable supply line for parts. Parts and munitions that can be assembled by hand into one favored multirotor drone design that can carry heavier loads costs more than $27,500, 3D said.

Still, the battles, and the casualties, grind on.

On March 20, Mr. Shan Gyi, the rebel force’s star pilot, was flying a drone from a spot on the front line. Suddenly, a much more menacing flying machine — a junta fighter jet — shrieked overhead. Its bombs struck, 3D explained later, and Mr. Shan Gyi was killed in action. He was 22.

Muyi Xiao contributed reporting.

Hannah Beech is a Times reporter based in Bangkok who has been covering Asia for more than 25 years. She focuses on in-depth and investigative stories. More about Hannah Beech

Paul Mozur is the global technology correspondent for The Times, based in Taipei. Previously he wrote about technology and politics in Asia from Hong Kong, Shanghai and Seoul. More about Paul Mozur

The New York Times · by Paul Mozur · May 4, 2024

12. Campus Protests Give Russia, China and Iran Fuel to Exploit U.S. Divide

Exploit the divide? I am sure some (or all) are working hard using their subversive means to contribute and fan the flames of the divide.

Campus Protests Give Russia, China and Iran Fuel to Exploit U.S. Divide

By Steven Lee Myers and Tiffany Hsu

May 2, 2024

The New York Times · by Tiffany Hsu · May 2, 2024

America’s adversaries have mounted online campaigns to amplify the social and political conflicts over Gaza flaring at universities, researchers say.

A protester with a Palestinian flag on a Columbia University building on Monday. So far, there is little evidence that U.S. adversaries have provided material or organizational support to the protests.Credit...Amir Hamja/The New York Times

By Steven Lee Myers and

May 2, 2024

An article on a fake online news outlet that Meta has linked to Russia’s information operations attributed the clashes unfolding on American college campuses to the failures of the Biden administration. A newspaper controlled by the Communist Party of China said the police crackdowns exposed the “double standards and hypocrisy” in the United States when it comes to free speech.

On X, a spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Kanaani, posted a cartoon of the police arresting a young protester in the guise of the Statue of Liberty. “Imprisonment of #freedom in the U.S.A.,” he wrote.

As protests over the war in Gaza have spread across the United States, Russia, China and Iran have seized on them to score geopolitical points abroad and stoke tensions within the United States, according to researchers who have identified both overt and covert efforts by the countries to amplify the protests since they began.

There is little evidence — at least so far — that the countries have provided material or organizational support to the protests, the way Russia recruited unwitting Black Lives Matter protesters to stage rallies before the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

Nonetheless, the campaigns have portrayed the United States as a country rived by social and political turmoil. In the past two weeks alone, state media in Russia, China and Iran have produced nearly 400 articles in English about the protests, according to NewsGuard, an organization that tracks misinformation online. The countries have also unleashed a wave of content through inauthentic accounts or bots on social media platforms like X and Telegram or websites created, in Russia’s case, to mimic Western news organizations.

“It’s a wound that our adversaries are going to try to spread salt on because they can,” said Darren Linvill, a director of the Media Forensics Hub at Clemson University, which has identified campaigns by all three countries. “The more we fight amongst ourselves, the easier their life is and the more they can get away with.”

Researchers are concerned that some foreign influence operations are also pivoting toward the presidential election in November, seeking to inflame partisan tensions, denigrate democracy and promote isolationism. All three adversaries have unleashed a deluge of propaganda and disinformation ever since the war over Gaza began in October, seeking to undercut Israel and, as its principal ally, the United States while expressing support for Hamas or the Palestinians generally.

The campus protests, which gained momentum in recent weeks, have allowed them to shift their propaganda to focus on the Biden administration’s strong support for Israel, arguing that it has undermined its international standing while not reflecting popular sentiment at home.

“The policies of the Biden administration are complicating the situation inside the country,” the article on TruthGate, one of a handful of websites that Meta said last year were created by a Russian information operation known as Doppelgänger to spread propaganda under the guise of an American news outlet, said on Wednesday. “In the rush to help our controversial allies, they have completely forgotten about domestic affairs. Now the situation seems irreparable.”

The New York City police deployed heavy equipment to enter the occupied Hamilton Hall at Columbia this week. Some Chinese-linked accounts have criticized law enforcement response to the protests as hypocritical.Credit...Bing Guan for The New York Times

The influence efforts have been tracked by researchers at Clemson and NewsGuard, as well as the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Recorded Future, a threat intelligence company.

One covert Chinese influence campaign known as Spamouflage, which was first linked to an arm of the Ministry of Public Security in 2019, has also turned its attention to the protests. Some posts on X claimed that the United States was “DISPLAYING TOTALITARIANISM.” Similar language — such as “how could there be such rough police officers in the world” and “expulsion, arrest, suppression!” — echoed across several accounts identified by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a research organization in Washington focused on national security.

Max Lesser, a senior analyst for the foundation, described the “high volume” of protest-related content as “a clear example of a foreign adversary actively exploiting an ongoing domestic crisis.”

Many of the accounts linked to Spamouflage share similar content. One on X, with nearly 18,000 followers, retweeted a post from a Chinese diplomat in Pakistan that criticized the police response to student protesters and featured Mandarin-subtitled footage of the campus demonstrations. Its profile photo was an image of Winter, the South Korean pop singer. It listed its location as the United States but typically posted during Asia’s day, while its content frequently included grammatical errors.

Another account on X, which according to Mr. Linvill of Clemson was also linked to Spamouflage, an operation sometimes known as Dragonbridge, reposted a message by a prominent pro-Palestinian organization in New York City calling on protesters to “flood the encampments” at the city’s universities.

The protests have shifted the focus of propaganda to the Biden administration’s strong support for Israel, arguing that America has undermined its global standing.Credit...Bing Guan for The New York Times

The researchers, however, have not detected a direct effort to organize protests or provoke violence. The focus, rather, has been to highlight the divisions that the war in Gaza has exposed in public opinion in the United States — and the potential effect that has on government policy.

Brian Liston, an analyst with Recorded Future, said that in the case of Russia, the campaign “was attempting to stoke tensions on both sides of the protest argument,” alternately praising the protesters and denouncing them as antisemitic.

In many instances, the campaigns are simply amplifying sentiments expressed by the protesters and their supporters. Chen Weihua, an outspoken editor and columnist for China Daily, the official state newspaper in English, has recently reposted messages on X from people like Jill Stein, the presidential candidate of the Green Party, and Cynthia Nixon, the actress from “Sex in the City.”

For China, the scenes of American police officers in riot gear arresting young protesters have particular resonance because of the sharp criticism the Communist government faced from the United States and other democracies when its security forces clashed with protesters in Hong Kong for months in 2019 over the reversal of political freedoms that the government had promised to preserve in the former British colony.

“When Hong Kong students destroyed schools, blocked roads, and threw gasoline bombs, the United States told the Hong Kong government to exercise restraint and not disrupt reasonable demonstrations,” one account linked to Spamouflage declared. “Now facing American students, the police take direct action and arrest them!”

Melanie Smith, the director of research for the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a research organization that studies online disinformation, polarization and extremism, said China’s efforts had become notably more aggressive toward the Biden administration.

Her organization and others previously identified an incipient effort to undermine President Biden’s re-election prospects. That effort has included creating fake accounts posing as those run by Americans critical of Mr. Biden’s policies.

“Their content is relatively aggressively talking about how young people are unlikely to vote for Biden over this as an issue,” Ms. Smith said of the Chinese response to the protests.

Bret Schafer, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund who studies information manipulation, said China, Russia and Iran had different motivations for getting involved. They all, however, benefited from highlighting narratives that damage global perceptions of the United States. State media in Iran, which has long supported Hamas, has posted more about the protests than Russia or China and amplified criticism of the police response from American commentators such as Jackson Hinkle, he said.

The emphasis on the protests follows similar efforts to criticize the $95.3 billion foreign aid package for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine that Congress passed and Mr. Biden signed last month.

The Information Epidemiology Lab, a research group that studies malign influence campaigns, said the Russian information operation Doppelgänger had been posting content critical of the aid package or focused on the political debate surrounding it. The goal is to portray the United States as an unreliable global ally — some posts claimed that it had abandoned Israel.

Instead, the posts suggested, Israel and other countries should seek new partnerships with Russia and China. Another series of posts shared an article from a website masquerading as Fox News, which claimed that former President Donald J. Trump would “stop the plundering of the U.S. budget.”

Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation and disinformation from San Francisco. Since joining The Times in 1989, he has reported from around the world, including Moscow, Baghdad, Beijing and Seoul. More about Steven Lee Myers

Tiffany Hsu reports on misinformation and disinformation and its origins, movement and consequences. She has been a journalist for more than two decades. More about Tiffany Hsu

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 20 of the New York edition with the headline: Global Rivals of U.S. Aim To Exploit Protest Divide

The New York Times · by Tiffany Hsu · May 2, 2024

13. Israel–Hamas War (Iran) Update, May 4, 2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-may-4-2024

Key Takeaways:

• Gaza Strip: Four Palestinian militias conducted at least eight indirect fire attacks targeting Israeli forces along the Netzarim corridor on May 3 and 4.
• Ceasefire Negotiations: Hamas is expected to present an official response to the proposal during the current ceasefire talks. A senior Hamas official said that Hamas is skeptical Israel will implement the ceasefire given internal Israeli politics.
• West Bank: Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least three locations in the West Bank since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on May 3.
• Lebanon: Iranian-backed fighters, including Lebanese Hezbollah, have conducted at least five attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on May 3.

IRAN UPDATE, MAY 4, 2024

May 4, 2024 - ISW Press

Download the PDF

Iran Update, May 4, 2024

Kathryn Tyson, Johanna Moore, Alexandra Braverman, Brian Carter

Information Cutoff: 2:00 pm ET

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

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

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

CTP-ISW will publish abbreviated updates on May 4 and 5, 2024. Detailed coverage will resume on Monday, May 6, 2024.

Hamas and Qatari delegations arrived in Cairo to discuss the current ceasefire proposal on May 4.[1] Hamas is expected to present an official response to the proposal during the discussions.[2] Arab mediators told the Wall Street Journal that the head of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, said on May 3 that the proposed deal is the closest deal to Hamas’ demands so far, but Sinwar raised several conditions.[3] Hamas Political Bureau member Ghazi Hamad said that the group is still considering the proposal and considering its response.[4] Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi told Palestinian media on May 3 that Hamas is skeptical that Israel will implement the ceasefire deal given internal Israeli politics.[5] Israel has not sent a delegation to participate in the talks, but an unnamed Israeli official said that Israel will send a delegation to Cairo if there is “positive movement” on the Hamas side regarding a deal.[6]

Key Takeaways:

• Gaza Strip: Four Palestinian militias conducted at least eight indirect fire attacks targeting Israeli forces along the Netzarim corridor on May 3 and 4.
• Ceasefire Negotiations: Hamas is expected to present an official response to the proposal during the current ceasefire talks. A senior Hamas official said that Hamas is skeptical Israel will implement the ceasefire given internal Israeli politics.
• West Bank: Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least three locations in the West Bank since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on May 3.
• Lebanon: Iranian-backed fighters, including Lebanese Hezbollah, have conducted at least five attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on May 3.

Gaza Strip

Axis of Resistance objectives:

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

Four Palestinian militias conducted at least eight indirect fire attacks targeting Israeli forces along the Netzarim corridor on May 3 and 4.[7] Israeli forces have established forward positions along the Netzarim corridor to facilitate future raids into the northern Gaza Strip.[8] Palestinian militias have claimed almost daily attacks targeting Israeli forces near the Netzarim corridor since April 18.[9]

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) struck Palestinian militia infrastructure in the central Gaza Strip on May 4. The IDF Air Force, in coordination with the 215th Artillery Brigade (162nd Division) conducted airstrikes targeting mortar launchers in an unspecified area in the central Gaza Strip.[10] The IDF Navy struck unspecified targets in the central Gaza Strip to support the IDF 99th Division there.[11]

The IDF Air Force struck Palestinian militia infrastructure and other unspecified targets in the southern Gaza Strip on May 4. The IDF Air Force conducted airstrikes targeting a Hamas rocket launcher in an unspecified area in the southern Gaza Strip.[12] The IDF Air Force struck unspecified targets near a launch site in Khan Younis.[13] The IDF said that it conducted the strikes after it identified an unspecified launch from the area towards Ein Hashlosha, which fell in an open area.[14]

Unspecified Palestinian fighters conducted an indirect fire attack targeting Ein Hashlosha.[15]

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

West Bank

Axis of Resistance objectives:

• Establish the West Bank as a viable front against Israel

Israeli forces have engaged Palestinian fighters in at least three locations in the West Bank since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on May 3.[16] Israeli security forces conducted an overnight raid in Deir al Ghusoun targeting a militia cell barricaded in a building.[17] Israeli forces fired on the building and demolished it.[18] Local footage showed Israeli forces raiding the building and the arrest of at least one individual.[19] The al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade targeted Israeli forces with “machine guns“ and improvised explosive devices (IED) during the raid.[20] The IDF killed five Palestinian fighters.[21]

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

Southern Lebanon and Golan Heights

Axis of Resistance objectives:

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

Iranian-backed fighters, including Lebanese Hezbollah, have conducted at least five attacks from southern Lebanon into northern Israel since CTP-ISW's last data cutoff on May 3.[22]

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

Iran and Axis of Resistance

Nothing Significant to Report.

14. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 4, 2024

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-4-2024

Key Takeaways:

• Russian forces made a notable tactical advance northwest of Avdiivka near Arkhanhelske on the night of May 3 to 4, likely following a Ukrainian decision to withdraw from the area on May 3.
• The Kremlin continues efforts to portray its unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine as something other than what it is while continuing to assert the jurisdiction of Russian federal law over sovereign states.
• The Russian law enforcement conducted a search on May 4 of supporters of imprisoned Russian ultranationalist and former officer Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) in Tula Oblast, possibly in an attempt to set information conditions to ban the movement in Russia.
• Russian forces recently advanced near Avdiivka and Donetsk City and in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area.
• The Kremlin is continuing its ongoing campaign to centralize control over Donetsk People’s Republic’s (DNR) irregular forces by co-opting DNR commanders and officials.

RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MAY 4, 2024

May 4, 2024 - ISW Press

Download the PDF

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, May 4, 2024

Christina Harward, Angelica Evans, Kateryna Stepanenko, and Frederick W. Kagan

May 4, 2024, 9 pm ET 

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

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

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

Note: The data cut-off for this product was 3:20pm ET on May 4. ISW will cover subsequent reports in the May 5 Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment.

Russian forces made a notable tactical advance northwest of Avdiivka near Arkhanhelske on the night of May 3 to 4, likely following a Ukrainian decision to withdraw from the area on May 3. A Russian milblogger posted footage on May 4 reportedly of elements of the Russian “Lavina” Battalion of the 132nd Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st Donetsk People’s Republic [DNR] Army Corps) raising a flag in Arkhanhelske, and ISW geolocated this footage to northern Arkhanhelske.[1] Additional geolocated footage published on May 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced in the eastern outskirts of Arkhanhelske.[2] ISW assesses that the Russian seizure of Arkhanhelske also indicates that Russian forces likely control Keramik and Novokalynove (both southeast of Arkhanhelske). Geolocated footage published on May 3 shows Ukrainian forces withdrawing from northern Arkhanhelske, and Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces advanced in the settlement overnight on May 3 to 4 following the Ukrainian withdrawal.[3] A prominent Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces conducted offensive operations to seize Arkhanhelske in several stages, with Russian forces advancing from Ocheretyne (northwest of Avdiivka and southwest of Arkhanhelske) a week ago and Russian forces from Keramik (east of Ocheretyne) seizing the settlement on May 3.[4] Ukrainian forces may have decided to trade space for time as they wait for the arrival of US aid to the frontline at scale in the coming weeks – an appropriate decision for an under-resourced force at risk of being outflanked.[5] ISW continues to assess that Russian forces are likely trying to take advantage of the limited time window before the arrival of Western military aid deliveries by intensifying offensive operations and that Russian forces may make further tactical advances in this area in the near future.[6]

Russian forces appear to be choosing to exploit the tactical situation northwest of Avdiivka – a sound military undertaking – but their ultimate objective in this frontline sector remains unclear. Russian forces appear to be choosing to exploit the area where Russian forces are most likely to make tactical gains in the near future, but it is unclear if they will continue to drive north toward Toretsk or return to their previous focus on Pokrovsk to the northwest.[7] Russian forces have already committed roughly a division’s worth of combat power (comprised mainly of four Central Military District [CMD] brigades) to the frontline northwest of Avdiivka and were reportedly continuing to introduce additional forces in this general area.[8] Ukrainian sources have recently reported that Russia committed elements of the 55th Motorized Rifle Brigade (41st Combined Arms Army, CMD) to the Novobakhmutivka area (south of Ocheretyne).[9] Russian forces were likely to continue to push northwest of Avdiivka as long as there were opportunities to exploit the tactical situation in the area.

The Kremlin continues efforts to portray its unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine as something other than what it is while continuing to assert the jurisdiction of Russian federal law over sovereign states. Russian state media reported on May 4 that the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) placed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukrainian Ground Forces Commander Lieutenant General Oleksandr Pavlyuk, and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Russia’s wanted list and opened criminal cases against the three Ukrainian leaders.[10] Russian state media noted that the Russian MVD did not specify Zelensky‘s, Pavlyuk‘s, or Poroshenko’s crimes nor the alleged crimes of the previous Ukrainian officials that Russia placed on its wanted list, including Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov and Ukrainian State Security Service (SBU) Head Vasyl Malyuk. One Russian milblogger expressed hope that the warrant for Zelensky’s arrest will prevent Zelensky from visiting countries with an extradition treaty with Russia.[11] The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) called the arrest warrants an act of Russian propaganda.[12] Ukrainian officials have recently warned that the Kremlin is intensifying an existing information operation called “Maidan 3” aimed at creating doubt about the legitimacy of Zelensky’s presidency among Ukrainians and that “Maidan 3” will likely peak around late May 2024.[13] The Kremlin’s decision to place Zelensky, Pavlyuk, and Poroshenko on Russia’s wanted list is likely part of Russia‘s “Maidan 3” information operation and of the Kremlin’s wider efforts to discredit the current and previous pro-Western Ukrainian governments that followed Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution in 2014 as well as to isolate Ukraine diplomatically.[14]

The Kremlin’s decision to place Ukrainian officials on Russia’s wanted list is also an aspect of its continued efforts to assert the jurisdiction of Russian federal laws in sovereign European and post-Soviet countries where Russia has no legal jurisdiction. The Russian MVD has previously placed multiple officials from NATO member countries – including Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – on Russia’s wanted list for allegedly breaking a variety of Russian federal laws within NATO member countries.[15] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin’s efforts to assert the jurisdiction of Russia's efforts to set informational conditions justifying possible future Russian aggression against NATO states.[16]

Russian law enforcement conducted a search on May 4 of supporters of imprisoned Russian ultranationalist and former officer Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) in Tula Oblast, possibly in an attempt to set information conditions to ban the movement in Russia. Russian law enforcement officials, including the Federal Security Service (FSB) officials, reportedly conducted a search of the Russian Strelkov (Girkin) Movement (RDS) branch in Tula Oblast on May 4.[17] The RDS reported that Russian law enforcement officials searched the RDS Tula Oblast branch for members of the all-Russian pro-Ukrainian Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), who were recently found guilty by a local court of inscribing a “Freedom for Strelkov” slogan on a waste heap in Novomoskovsk, Tula Oblast on April 29.[18] A Russian Telegram channel, which published insider information from law enforcement agencies, reported that Russian law enforcement officials searched at least three RDS members and detained RDS member Alexander Omelchenko. Russian law enforcement officials later released Omelchenko but confiscated his phone. The RDS implied that Russian law enforcement officials are deliberately trying to discredit and ban the movement by claiming that the RDS is affiliated with RDK, which the Russian government has designated as a terrorist organization in Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin notably recently met with Tula Oblast Governor Alexei Dyumin on May 2, but it is unclear if these two events are related.[19]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian forces made a notable tactical advance northwest of Avdiivka near Arkhanhelske on the night of May 3 to 4, likely following a Ukrainian decision to withdraw from the area on May 3.
• The Kremlin continues efforts to portray its unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine as something other than what it is while continuing to assert the jurisdiction of Russian federal law over sovereign states.
• The Russian law enforcement conducted a search on May 4 of supporters of imprisoned Russian ultranationalist and former officer Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) in Tula Oblast, possibly in an attempt to set information conditions to ban the movement in Russia.
• Russian forces recently advanced near Avdiivka and Donetsk City and in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area.
• The Kremlin is continuing its ongoing campaign to centralize control over Donetsk People’s Republic’s (DNR) irregular forces by co-opting DNR commanders and officials.

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

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

Russian Main Effort – Eastern Ukraine

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

Russian forces continued to launch ground attacks on the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line on May 4 but did not make confirmed advances. Elements of the Russian 6th Assault Company and “V” Assault Company of the 272nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (47th Tank Division, 1st Guards Tank Army [GTA], Moscow Military District [MMD]) claimed on May 4 that they recently seized Kotlyarivka (southeast of Kupyansk).[20] ISW has not observed geolocated visual confirmation of this claim, however. Positional battles continued east of Kupyansk near Petropavlivka; southeast of Kupyansk near Pishchane, Kyslivka, and Kotlyarivka; northwest of Svatove near Berestove and Stelmakhivka; and west of Svatove near Andriivka.[21] Positional battles also continued southwest of Svatove near Novovodyane, Makiivka, and Nevske; west of Kreminna near Terny and Torske; southwest of Kreminna near Dibrova; and south of Kreminna near Hryhorivka, Serebryanske forest, and Bilohorivka.[22]

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

Positional engagements continued in the Siversk direction (northeast of Bakhmut) on May 4, but there were no confirmed changes to this frontline. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Russian forces unsuccessfully attacked southwest of Siversk near Rozdolivka.[23] Elements of the Russian 123rd Motorized Rifle Brigade (2nd Luhansk People’s Republic [LNR] Army Corps [AC]) are reportedly operating near Spirne (southeast of Siversk), and elements of the 106th Airborne (VDV) Division are reportedly operating near Rozdolivka.[24]

Ukrainian and Russian forces continued to fight near Chasiv Yar on May 4, but there were no confirmed changes to this frontline. A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces advanced between Ivanivske (east of Chasiv Yar) and Klishchiivka (southeast of Chasiv Yar), but ISW has not observed visual confirmation of this claim.[25] A Russian source claimed that Ukrainian control over Hryhorivka and Kalynivka (both north of Chasiv Yar) and counterattacks in their vicinity are preventing Russian forces from advancing north of Chasiv Yar.[26] The deputy commander of a Ukrainian brigade operating near Chasiv Yar stated that Russian forces are trying to bypass Chasiv Yar from Bohdanivka (northeast of Chasiv Yar) and Ivanivske while also trying to attack the settlement head-on.[27] Fighting continued northwest of Chasiv Yar near Bohdanivka; north of Chasiv Yar near Kalynivka; near the Novyi Microraion (southeastern Chasiv Yar); east of Chasiv Yar near Ivanivske; and southeast of Chasiv Yar near Andriivka and Klishchiivka.[28] Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets stated that newly committed additional elements of the Russian 331st VDV Regiment (98th VDV Division) are operating between Chasiv Yar and the T0504 (Bakhmut-Kostyantynivka) highway; forward elements of the 217th VDV Regiment (98th VDV Division) and Russian Volunteer Corps are operating in the forest area northeast of the Kanal Microraion (easternmost Chasiv Yar); and other elements of the 217th VDV Regiment are trying to advance towards Kalynivka from Bohdanivka.[29] Mashovets stated that elements of the 102nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (150th Motorized Rifle Division, 8th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]) are struggling to support the left flank of the 98th VDV Division's tactical strike group (likely referring to the area near Ivanivske), which is complicating the division's advance south of Chasiv Yar. Mashovets stated that elements of the 11th Separate VDV Brigade are operating south of Ivanivske; elements of the 88th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (2nd LNR AC) returned to the battlefield after reconstitution and are operating east of Klishchiivka; and elements of the 83rd Separate VDV Brigade are operating near Klishchiivka and Andriivka. Elements of the Russian 200th Motorized Rifle Brigade (14th AC, Leningrad Military District [LMD]) are reportedly operating near Chasiv Yar.[30]

See topline text for updates on the situation northwest of Avdiivka near Ocheretyne.

Russian forces continued ground attacks west and southwest of Avdiivka on May 4, but there were no confirmed changes to the frontline in this area. Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces advanced in central Nevelske (southwest of Avdiivka), advanced 250 meters deep in Netaylove (southwest of Avdiivka), and advanced up to 1.41 kilometers wide and 1.45 kilometers deep south of Pervomaiske (southwest of Avdiivka).[31] Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces also advanced northwest of Avdiivka near Berdychi and Semenivka and west of Avdiivka near Umanske.[32] ISW has not observed visual confirmation of these Russian claims, however. Mashovets stated that elements of the Russian 114th Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st Donetsk People's Republic [DNR] AC) and the 27th Motorized Rifle Division (2nd CAA, Central Military District [CMD]) are operating west of Berdychi, Semenivka, and Orlivka (all northwest of Avdiivka) and that elements of the 55th Motorized Rifle Brigade (41st CAA, CMD) reinforced other elements of the 27th Motorized Rifle Division on the Solovyove-Sokil and Novobakhmutivka-Novopokrovske lines (all northwest of Avdiivka) and advanced south of Novobakhmutivka.[33]

Russian forces recently made confirmed advances west and southwest of Donetsk City amid continued fighting in the area on May 4. Geolocated footage published on May 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced in the northern part of the brick factory in central Krasnohorivka (west of Donetsk City), and Russian milbloggers claimed that elements of the Russian 5th Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st DNR AC) seized the factory.[34] Geolocated footage published on May 3 indicates that Russian forces advanced west and southwest of Novomykhailvika (southwest of Donetsk City), and Russian milbloggers commented that Russian forces resumed offensive operations near Novomykhailivka after a brief operational (likely referring to tactical) pause.[35] A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces advanced in central Heorhiivka (west of Donetsk City), but ISW has not observed visual confirmation of this claim.[36] Russian and Ukrainian forces engaged in combat west of Donetsk City near Heorhiivka and Krasnohorivka and southwest of Donetsk City near Paraskoviivka and Novomykhailivka.[37]

Russian forces recently made confirmed advances in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area amid continued positional engagements in the area on May 4. Geolocated footage published on May 4 indicates that Russian forces advanced in central Urozhaine (south of Velyka Novosilka).[38] Positional engagements continued northeast of Vuhledar near Vodyane and south of Velyka Novosilka near Staromayorske and Urozhaine.[39] Russian sources claimed that Russian forces struck a bridge over the Mokri Yaly River in Velyka Novosilka with a Kh-38ML air-to-surface missile.[40] Elements of the Russian 39th Motorized Rifle Brigade (68th AC, Eastern Military District [EMD]) are reportedly operating in the Donetsk-Zaporizhia Oblast border area, and elements of the 14th Spetsnaz Brigade (subordinate to the Russian General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate [GRU]) and 57th Motorized Rifle Brigade (5th CAA, EMD) are reportedly operating near Vuhledar.[41]

Russian forces reportedly recently conducted a series of unsuccessful mechanized assaults near Vuhledar, likely over the past several weeks. A Ukrainian OSINT account, who is reportedly in contact with Ukrainian servicemen operating in Vuhledar direction, posted photos on May 4 reportedly of at least 32 damaged and destroyed Russian armored vehicles near Vuhledar following mechanized assaults by elements of the Russian 5th Tank Brigade (36th CAA, EMD), 37th Motorized Rifle Brigade (36th CAA), and 40th Naval Infantry Brigade (Pacific Fleet, EMD).[42] Although the source did not specify the timing of the reported unsuccessful Russian mechanized assaults, multiple factors indicate that the photos of the destroyed and damaged vehicles are likely recent: the vehicle treads appear to be fresh, the ground is covered in green grass, and some of the vehicles are Russian “turtle tanks” equipped with welded metal plates that Russian forces only started to use widely on the battlefield in recent weeks.[43] Russian forces suffered large-scale equipment losses during mechanized assaults near Vuhledar in 2023, and the recent unsuccessful Russian mechanized assaults, especially with “turtle tanks” aimed at protecting Russian equipment from Ukrainian drone strikes, demonstrate that Russian forces have been unable to overcome their issues when conducting mechanized assaults near Vuhledar.[44]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on May 4 that Ukrainian forces shot down a Russian Su-25 aircraft in an unspecified area of Donetsk Oblast.[45]

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

Russian forces continued to attack Ukrainian positions in Robotyne and its vicinity on May 4, but the frontline did not change. Positional battles continued in the Robotyne area and northwest of Verbove (east of Robotyne).[46] Spokesperson of the Ukrainian Legion of Freedom Kostyantyn Denysov stated that Russian forces are continuing to use small infantry groups to attack in the Zaporizhia direction and observed that Russian forces’ successes in Zaporizhia Oblast are “microscopic and pitiful” relative to the resources Russian forces committed to this direction.[47] Denysov added that the intensity of Russian attacks in western Zaporizhia Oblast decreased over the past four to five weeks. One milblogger observed that Russian forces are having difficulties securing positions north of Robotyne and northwest of Verbove because of the destruction of positions and buildings in the area.[48] The milblogger also claimed that Russian forces operating on the Robotyne-Verbove line require additional electronic warfare (EW) systems to repel Ukrainian drones. Russian elements of the 108th Guards Airborne (VDV) Regiment and 56th Guards VDV Regiment (both part of the 7th VDV Division) are reportedly operating on the Robotyne-Verbove line.[49] Elements of the Russian 1152nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (58th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]) and 291st Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment (42nd Motorized Rifle Division, 58th CAA) are also reportedly operating in the Robotyne area; and elements of the Russian 136th Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade (58th CAA) are reportedly operating in the Zaporizhia direction.[50]

Positional engagements continued in the east (left) bank of Kherson Oblast near Krynky and on the Nestryha Island in the Dnipro River Delta on May 3 and May 4.[51] Ukrainian Southern Operational Command Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk stated that Ukrainian positions on the Nestryha Island do not constitute a bridgehead and noted that Ukrainian control over this island is important as it is the last island close to the shore.[52] Pletenchuk added that Russian forces would need to cross the Dnipro River to get closer to Ukrainian forces, which would make Russian forces more vulnerable to Ukrainian fire. A Russian milblogger observed that both Russian and Ukrainian forces are intensifying operations on the islands in the Dnipro River Delta and noted that Russian forces have an acute lack of mobile EW systems and experience problems with personnel evacuations.[53] Elements of the Russian 810th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade (Black Sea Fleet [BSF]) are reportedly operating near Krynky.[54] Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) reportedly launched three guided aerial bombs on Beryslav (west [right] bank Kherson Oblast).[55]

The Russian MoD claimed on May 4 that Russian forces intercepted four Ukrainian ATACMS strikes over Crimea.[56]

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

Russian forces conducted a limited series of drone and missile strikes against targets in Ukraine on May 4. Ukrainian military officials reported on May 4 that Russian forces launched 13 Shahed-136/131 drones and four S-300 air defense missiles from Belgorod Oblast on the night of May 4.[57] Ukrainian air defenses and mobile fire groups destroyed the 13 Shahed drones over Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Military Administration Head Serhii Lysak reported that debris from downed drones damaged critical infrastructure and three houses.[58] Kharkiv Oblast officials reported that debris from Russian Shahed drones caused three large fires in warehouses in Kharkiv City and injured several civilians, including a young girl.[59] Ukrainian Eastern Air Command later reported that Ukrainian forces destroyed a Kh-59/69 guided missile over Dnipro raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast on the evening of May 4.[60] Ukraine‘s Southern Operational Command reported that Russian forces conducted a cruise missile strike, presumably with a Kh-59 guided missile, against Kirovohrad Oblast and struck 20 residential and commercial buildings and a gas pipeline.[61] Odesa Oblast Military Administration Head Oleh Kiper reported that Russian forces conducted a missile strike against targets in Odesa raion using an unspecified number and type of missiles, damaging civilian infrastructure and injuring three people on the afternoon of May 4.[62]

Russian forces are reportedly adjusting their strike packages to include greater numbers of ballistic and guided missiles. Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Major Ilya Yevlash reported on May 4 that Russian forces have recently significantly decreased their use of attack drones, namely Shahed drones, during Russian strikes against Ukraine.[63] Yevlash stated that Russian forces are using a greater number of ballistic and guided missiles, such as Kh-59 missiles, over Shahed drones. Yevlash warned that Russian forces are likely accumulating weapons to conduct strikes in honor of upcoming holidays, including Orthodox Easter and the May 9 Victory Day holiday. Yevlash reported that Russian forces are using reconnaissance drones and Su-24MR aircraft in place of A-50 long-range radar detection aircraft to conduct reconnaissance along the Russia-Ukraine border and frontline areas. Ukrainian Southern Operational Command Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk stated that Russian forces are using ballistic missiles in place of less accurate sea-based cruise missiles.[64] Pletencuk stated that Russian forces are launching ballistic missiles, namely Iskander-M missiles, from occupied Crimea and that these missiles are particularly dangerous because their proximity to Ukraine allows Ukrainian forces very little reaction time.

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

The Kremlin is continuing its ongoing campaign to centralize control over Donetsk People’s Republic’s (DNR) irregular forces by co-opting DNR commanders and officials. Russian President Vladimir Putin awarded the commander of the “Kaskad” operational combat tactical formation, Alexei Dikiy, with the title of Hero of Russia on May 4.[65] ISW previously reported that the Russian MoD disbanded and dissolved Kaskad as the operational combat tactical formation of the DNR Internal Ministry.[66] The Kremlin may have awarded Dikiy to co-opt him following the dissolution of Kaskad as a semi-independent armed formation.

A Russian milblogger, who had previously served as a “Storm Z” instructor, claimed that Russian drone operators complain about the lack of first-person vision (FPV) drones in the Bakhmut direction.[67] Russian drone operators of an unnamed separate motorized rifle brigade operating in the Bakhmut area reportedly told the milblogger that they received only 15 drones for the entire brigade. The milblogger added that Russian forces are also experiencing acute problems with a shortage of working drones.

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

Nothing significant to report.

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

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

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

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

Russian Information Operations and Narratives

The Brookings Institution published a report on May 2 that found that Kremlin-affiliated actors are increasingly using TikTok to disseminate propaganda and disinformation to foreign audiences.[68] Brookings Institution fellow Valerie Wirtschafter, citing collected data from Kremlin-affiliated social media accounts, reported not only that Kremlin-affiliated accounts have increased their use of TikTok in 2024, but also that TikTok videos on these accounts are achieving significantly higher engagement rates compared to posts on other social media platforms. Wirtshafter reported that engagement with Kremlin-affiliated TikTok videos is 3.5 times higher than Kremlin-affiliated posts on Telegram and 20 times higher than posts on X (formerly Twitter). Wirtshafter reported that the content of roughly five percent of Kremlin-affiliated Telegram posts is related to US politics, but that the majority of posts about US politics focus on divisive issues. Wirtshafter reported that Spanish-language content about US politics is the most popular content disseminated by Kremlin-affiliated accounts. Wirtshafter noted that Kremlin-affiliated accounts largely use these platforms to spread Kremlin narratives and pro-Russian framing about current events.

Kremlin mouthpieces continue to attack Moldova's right to self-determination and sovereignty. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed on May 4 that the West controls Moldova and that Moldova is “repeating” the path of Ukraine.[69] Zakharova claimed that the current Moldovan government is increasingly considering itself Romanian and is repressing Moldovans. ISW has recently observed indications that the Kremlin is likely setting conditions to intensify its hybrid operations against Moldova.[70]

The Kremlin continues to lay the foundation to justify further repression against journalists and non-government organizations (NGOs). The Russian State Duma Commission for Investigating the Interference of Foreign States in Russia’s Internal Affairs claimed on May 4 that Russian authorities have recorded attempts by Western-funded journalists and NGOs to create a “negative backdrop” to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s upcoming inauguration.[71] The committee claimed that Western NGOs and journalists are distributing leaflets and posters with anti-Russian sentiments to Russian citizens. The committee’s statement is likely part of the Kremlin’s efforts to portray Russia as unified behind Putin and discredit any opposition to Putin. The Russian government will likely also attempt to use this claim to justify continuing to detain Russian journalists who work for Western publications.[72]

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

The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported on May 5 that former Wagner servicemen are training elements of the Belarusian 120th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade at an unspecified training ground in Belarus.[73]

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.

15. The anti-Israel agitators were actually outsiders – and the schools could not have handled it worse

Unfortunately Mr. Goodwin and the NY Post do not dive deep enough into the network of outside agitators. They only go deep enough to support their partisan agenda.  We really need to go deeper to find the foreign network that is really at the foundation of the malign influence. Yes there is an organic desire to protest among the students but they are being manipulated (and supported) on a much deeper level that they are not aware of.

Excerpt:

Radical-left students and Muslim Americans are a key component of the Democrats’ coalition in swing states, and they are already unhappy with Biden.

​But this does identify a key problem in how universities have handled the situation.

Excerpts:

But the small number of hardcore disruptors illustrates how badly Shafik and Columbia’s board bungled the responses.

Had they firmly enforced existing policies against disturbances from the outset, they might have been able to stop the harassment and threats before they metastasized into full-fledged disasters.

By coddling the troublemakers, administrators encouraged them and turned them into campus leaders.

The anti-Israel agitators were actually outsiders – and the schools could not have handled it worse

By Social Links forMichael Goodwin

Published May 4, 2024, 9:00 p.m. ET

New York Post · May 5, 2024

For many Americans, the words “outside agitators” evoke memories of southern segregationists complaining about northern civil rights workers organizing black Americans.

But times and issues change and those same words now have a very different connotation.

This time they are used by police and northern mayors, some of them black, to refer to professional radicals who helped start the antisemitic, pro-Hamas riots plaguing colleges across the country.

Mayor Adams early on accused “outside agitators” of radicalizing students when unruly mobs formed on campuses within the five boroughs, including New York University, City College, Fordham and Columbia.

“Outside agitators were on their grounds, training and really co-opting this movement,” Adams said about Columbia.

Police statistics confirm the outsiders’ lopsided role.

In some cases, more than half of those taken into custody by the NYPD have no affiliation with the universities where they were wreaking havoc.

NYU, for example, said 68 of the 133 people arrested there one day last month weren’t students, faculty, or staff.

More From Michael Goodwin

NYPD’s bust up at Columbia doesn’t mean this disgraceful antisemitic episode is over

The media is propagating evil lies about the situation in the Mideast

This is no 1960s love-in during anti-Israel rallies at elite universities

At City College, 102 of the 170 who were arrested last week had no affiliation with the college, police said.

Terrorist headbands

The Post identified one of the most violent leaders of the Columbia takeover as James Carlson, a former silver-spoon kid who is now a 40-year-old professional agitator who lives in a Brooklyn home valued at $3.4 million.

Described by police as a “longtime anarchist” with a rap sheet that goes back to 2005, Carlson has no affiliation with Columbia but was arrested inside Hamilton Hall on Tuesday night where protestors broke in and barricaded themselves behind piles of furniture.

Considered a possible leader of the group, he has been charged with burglary, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, conspiracy and criminal trespassing.

Many of the outside radicals come ready for battle with a “uniform” of masked faces and Arab kaffiyehs used as scarves and head coverings.

They also have a steady supply of Palestinian flags, one of which flew above City College until police took it down and raised Old Glory.

Green Hamas headbands and yellow Hezbollah flags also have been spotted, evidence that some of the hooligans are proud of their allegiance to groups designated by the United States as terrorist organizations.

The fact that many of the protesters’ tactics and the tents they’ve set up on campuses also are identical suggests there is a super structure guiding the turmoil.

The Wall Street Journal reports some activist groups have been training for the campus protests since soon after Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

It identified the National Students for Justice in Palestine, which has branches on more than 300 campuses, as a chief organizer, trainer and advocate for tent camps and the takeover of buildings.

It also reportedly helped guide the students’ agenda, which everywhere includes demands for colleges to end investments in companies doing business with Israel.

Given the many crimes charged in police crackdowns, as well as the antisemitic harassment and the embrace of terrorists, the evidence of an organized conspiracy should be fodder for the Department of Justice.

So far, however, the department has been silent and there is little chance Attorney General Merrick Garland will lift a finger if it might hurt President Biden’s chance of re-election.

Although Biden demanded that Garland prosecute Donald Trump, and Garland obeyed, the last thing the White House wants is a probe of terrorist wannabes.

Democratic base

Radical-left students and Muslim Americans are a key component of the Democrats’ coalition in swing states, and they are already unhappy with Biden.

A probe could guarantee he won’t get their votes.

The political math also explains much if not all of the administration’s pressure on Israel to agree to a permanent cease-fire with Hamas.

Until he realized the domestic downsides, Biden was a wholehearted supporter of Israel.

And so Garland has said nothing about the nationwide campus chaos and Biden never mentions antisemitism without also warning about Islamophobia, as if they are two equal sides of the same coin.

As the role of outsiders grows clear, the way most college presidents handled their campuses’ protests looks even worse than it did.

Nearly all these presidents were frightened into submission by a mouse that roared in the sense that relatively few students were actually involved.

It’s bad enough that the presidents tolerated takeovers of university properties, harassment of students and nonstop noise leading to canceled classes and threats to disrupt graduations.

Many school leaders also foolishly offered concessions during negotiations even though most protests included violations of rules and criminal laws.

Israel War Update

Get the most important developments in the region, globally and locally.

Thanks for signing up!

Some presidents essentially capitulated, with Brown agreeing to vote on the antisemitic divest demand.

Northwestern agreed to a quota system by setting aside five scholarships for Palestinian students each year and giving Muslim groups special spaces on campus for “community building.”

Columbia, the epicenter of the outbreak, is a textbook case of a weak leader allowing her campus to be held hostage for more than two weeks as she negotiated with ringleaders.

The Ivy League school’s president, Minouche Shafik, also twice called in the NYPD to arrest resisters who occupied university property and refused to leave.

The first time was on April 18, when New York’s Finest rousted people who set up a tent camp in the middle of the campus.

Police later said just 38 of those arrested were students, CNN reported.

During the second crackdown, 80 students were arrested, along with 32 outsiders, including James Carlson.

Combined, that means just 118 students were allegedly committing violations serious enough to be arrested in the two raids.

It’s a drop in the Columbia bucket.

Across its undergraduate and graduate programs, the university enrolls nearly 37,000 students.

Coddling troublemakers

Even if the scope is limited to the undergraduate programs at Columbia and Barnard colleges, the total number of enrolled students is about 10,000.

And just 118 of them were arrested.

Of course, more students than that participated in some demonstrations and no doubt others supported the demands or just their friends.

But the small number of hardcore disruptors illustrates how badly Shafik and Columbia’s board bungled the responses.

Had they firmly enforced existing policies against disturbances from the outset, they might have been able to stop the harassment and threats before they metastasized into full-fledged disasters.

By coddling the troublemakers, administrators encouraged them and turned them into campus leaders.

The result was a lost spring semester for serious students and more turbulence for the institution, which will suffer serious reputational damage.

Civil rights probes by Congress and the Department of Education, combined with class-action lawsuits over threats to Jewish students, promise expensive problems for years.

Alumni donations already are falling.

The pattern makes it hard to see any justification for Shafik remaining as president.

If she is forced out, she will join the former presidents of Harvard and Penn who were fired after their appeasing responses to antisemitism.

Shed no tears for any of them.

New York Post · May 5, 2024

16. This Is the Biggest Waste of Money in U.S. Military History

The web site is suspect. But I am passing this on because I have never seen such a hit job on the F-35.

This Is the Biggest Waste of Money in U.S. Military History

Look, it’s about the lessons we learned along the way

Cracked · by Eli Yudin · May 3, 2024

I think that for even the most jingoistic among us, the U.S. military budget is still a little staggering — especially because of the hospital-Advil style markups they charge taxpayers for basic equipment. Even the most budget-ignorant interior designer to the stars would be answering questions over spending $1,280 on a cup. For that price, it better refill itself with fresh, drinkable water using alchemy.

However, there’s one military project that’s particularly infamous for the sheer amount of money it’s burnt: the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter. It’s not just the retail price of a single one of these planes, though $100 million a pop definitely stings for anyone that’s ever transferred savings to checking to pay rent. It’s the greater price of the over 20-year research and development program that went into a plane that the military doesn’t even really like.

Public Domain

An F-35A Lightning II pictured on the ground, which is where they spend a remarkable amount of their time.

First off, it's the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history. No, not the most expensive failed weapons program, but the most expensive weapons program period. If something’s going to hold that title, you would hope it made war obsolete altogether. Instead, it’s a single not-great plane.

The total financial damage of the F-35 program? $1.7 trillion.

Which I don’t think still does it justice, because it’s hard to imagine just how insane of a number a trillion is. We’re talking about a million dollars squared, then almost doubled on top of that. The cost of making this one dogshit plane makes up five percent of our entire national debt. By the way, though there are completed F-35s being used today, the program is still officially in the “development phase,” 23 years after it was launched in 2001.

Advertisement

So what’s wrong with them? Dan Grazier, an expert on the aerial shitshow that is the F-35, explained it to CNN. The idea behind the F-35 is that it would be able to do the jobs of multiple specialized aircraft, all in one. But it is very much not able to. Apparently, those top aerospace engineering programs don’t ever teach the phrase “jack of all trades, master of none.” The F-35 is basically an airborne, $1.7 trillion spork.

Don’t believe me? Listen to the military themselves, trying to explain why they need a new plane to replace the F-35, which they never even officially finished.

Cracked · by Eli Yudin · May 3, 2024

17. RUSSIA AND OTHER DISASTERS – Gaza, Ukraine, and NATO Strategy Central

Stratbot AI is an interesting website that compiles useful information. You can interact with its chat not at the site. https://www.strategycentral.io/post/russia-and-other-disasters?utm

Some key excerpts (Bottom Lines):

Russia's Multifaceted Strategy Against Europe

Bottom Line: Russia's escalating adversarial relationship with Europe is characterized by a multifaceted strategy that combines traditional espionage, disinformation campaigns, and direct threats of military aggression. The central causes of this tension include geopolitical disputes, Russia's opposition to NATO expansion, and issues surrounding energy security and sanctions.

How Rosatom Helps Russia Circumvent International Sanctions

Bottom Line: Russia is effectively circumventing sanctions through its state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, leveraging its expansive corporate network and integrating into critical unsanctioned sectors. This maneuver is part of a broader Russian strategy to maintain and expand its geopolitical influence and continue its military activities despite international sanctions.

The Facade of Stability:

Unveiling the Vulnerabilities of Putin's Russia

Bottom Line: Russia under President Vladimir Putin is often perceived as a strong and stable regime due to its aggressive foreign policy and tight domestic controls. However, this appearance of strength masks an underlying brittleness similar to that of the Soviet Union before its collapse. Putin's regime, characterized by highly personalized and centralized decision-making, reveals significant vulnerabilities that compromise its stability and effectiveness. Despite projecting an image of robust control, the system's inherent weaknesses could lead to its abrupt unraveling under certain pressures.

· At the heart of the regime's vulnerability is Putin's personalized and paranoid decision-making style. 

Bolstering Ukraine:

The Strategic Implications of the U.S. $61 Billion Aid Package

Bottom Line: The recently passed U.S. aid package for Ukraine, valued at $61 billion, represents a significant bolstering of Ukraine's military capabilities and a substantial commitment from the United States to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. This aid package aims to supply Ukraine with much-needed ammunition and weaponry, including long-range ATACMS missiles, which are expected to significantly enhance Ukraine's ability to target and deter Russian military assets, particularly in occupied Crimea. This move is seen as a critical step in enhancing the security of the Black Sea region. It is part of a broader U.S. strategy to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity against Russian aggression.

Europe Without America:

The Security Challenges and Uncertain Future

Bottom Line: The geopolitical landscape in Europe is profoundly shaped by the security order established post-World War II and expanded post-Cold War, heavily reliant on U.S. involvement. This long-standing arrangement, characterized by American military and economic predominance, is now facing potential upheaval due to shifts in U.S. policy and attention, particularly with the rising focus on East Asia and the threat of a changing U.S. political landscape. This dependency on American power highlights Europe's vulnerability in maintaining security and stability independently, especially as U.S. priorities evolve.

​And more below.

RUSSIA AND OTHER DISASTERS

strategycentral.io · May 5, 2024

​April 29 – May 5, 2024

Escalating Tensions:

Russia's Multifaceted Strategy Against Europe

Bottom Line: Russia's escalating adversarial relationship with Europe is characterized by a multifaceted strategy that combines traditional espionage, disinformation campaigns, and direct threats of military aggression. The central causes of this tension include geopolitical disputes, Russia's opposition to NATO expansion, and issues surrounding energy security and sanctions.

• Russia has intensified its adversarial stance towards Europe, utilizing a blend of traditional espionage, disinformation campaigns, and direct military threats. In recent years, Moscow has expanded its tactics to include sabotage and nuclear threats, reflecting a strategy to deter Western military support for Ukraine and to impact Europe's political stability.
• Russian analysts and propagandists advocate for bringing the war to Europe through severe repercussions for European nations' involvement in Ukraine.
• Russia has been actively conducting disinformation operations to influence public opinion and destabilize political conditions across Europe. A significant instance was the uncovering of a pro-Russian disinformation network in Czechia, designed to affect the outcomes of European Parliament elections by spreading propaganda across several EU countries to weaken unity and fuel political divisions.
• Despite facing international sanctions, some European countries paradoxically supply Russia with materials that can be utilized in weapon production, a situation influenced by economic benefits or complex diplomatic relations, hindering a unified stance against Russian aggression.

Strategic Evasion:

How Rosatom Helps Russia Circumvent International Sanctions

Bottom Line: Russia is effectively circumventing sanctions through its state-owned nuclear corporation, Rosatom, leveraging its expansive corporate network and integrating into critical unsanctioned sectors. This maneuver is part of a broader Russian strategy to maintain and expand its geopolitical influence and continue its military activities despite international sanctions.

· Rosatom is pivotal in the global nuclear industry, supplying about 20% of the enriched uranium used by U.S. nuclear power plants. This creates dependencies that complicate the imposition of sanctions by Western countries.

· Rosatom has expanded its influence in developing countries in Asia and Africa by offering affordable nuclear technologies, which enhances Russia's political influence and builds further international dependencies. The corporation is also a key player in the Russian military-industrial complex, providing crucial components and materials for military hardware production, such as aluminum oxide for rocket fuel and lithium-ion batteries for military applications. These military-related activities are conducted under the guise of Rosatom’s unsanctioned entities, enabling Russia to acquire the necessary technology and components to bolster its military capabilities.

· Rosatom’s acquisition of Fesco, one of Russia's largest shipping companies, exemplifies Russia's methods to skirt sanctions. The integration of Fesco allows Rosatom to use alternative currencies like the Chinese yuan, avoiding restrictions associated with the U.S. dollar and euro. This strategic acquisition enhances Rosatom's ability to maintain a logistical network that supports both its economic and military endeavors, further complicating the application of effective sanctions.

· Rosatom’s strategic role in circumventing sanctions is integral to Russia's broader objectives of sustaining military operations and expanding geopolitical influence. By embedding military supply chains within its unsanctioned corporate structure and forging global nuclear deals, Rosatom not only reinforces Russia's strategic position but also highlights the challenges and limitations of current sanctions, making it difficult for the international community to restrict Russia's aggressive activities without affecting global nuclear energy supplies.

The Facade of Stability:

Unveiling the Vulnerabilities of Putin's Russia

Bottom Line: Russia under President Vladimir Putin is often perceived as a strong and stable regime due to its aggressive foreign policy and tight domestic controls. However, this appearance of strength masks an underlying brittleness similar to that of the Soviet Union before its collapse. Putin's regime, characterized by highly personalized and centralized decision-making, reveals significant vulnerabilities that compromise its stability and effectiveness. Despite projecting an image of robust control, the system's inherent weaknesses could lead to its abrupt unraveling under certain pressures.

· At the heart of the regime's vulnerability is Putin's personalized and paranoid decision-making style. This centralization results in a lack of quality control, with decisions only being as good as the directives from the top. The suppression of political dissent and the absence of institutional checks exacerbate these issues, making the government prone to policy failures and abrupt breakdowns. This approach has left Russia's political system fragile, lacking the resilience needed to adapt and innovate effectively.

· Domestically and internationally, Putin's governance has structural deficiencies. Economically, the regime's heavy-handed control and focus on short-term political gains hinder long-term stability and innovation despite apparent resilience to sanctions. Regarding security, the focus has shifted from comprehensive strategies to politically driven objectives, particularly with resources being diverted to the conflict in Ukraine. This misallocation weakens Russia's capacity to manage other critical security challenges effectively.

· In managing these systemic vulnerabilities, Putin relies on repression, propaganda, and a cultivated cult of personality. His governance maintains power through a patronage system, rewarding loyalty while eliminating opposition. Although this may ensure short-term stability, it fails to remedy the fundamental inefficiencies and vulnerabilities within the system, further entrenching them and making the regime susceptible to crises. The result is a paradoxical situation where Russia, under the guise of strength, faces significant risks of instability that could have profound implications for its future and international security.

Bolstering Ukraine:

The Strategic Implications of the U.S. $61 Billion Aid Package

Bottom Line: The recently passed U.S. aid package for Ukraine, valued at $61 billion, represents a significant bolstering of Ukraine's military capabilities and a substantial commitment from the United States to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. This aid package aims to supply Ukraine with much-needed ammunition and weaponry, including long-range ATACMS missiles, which are expected to significantly enhance Ukraine's ability to target and deter Russian military assets, particularly in occupied Crimea. This move is seen as a critical step in enhancing the security of the Black Sea region. It is part of a broader U.S. strategy to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity against Russian aggression.

· The U.S. strategy toward Russia and Ukraine is multifaceted. It combines military support for Ukraine with diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions aimed at penalizing Russia for its invasion and deterring further aggression. The overarching intent of U.S. policy in this region is to uphold international law and order, support democratic governance, and prevent the spread of authoritarianism, which the U.S. perceives as a significant threat to global stability and peace.

Overall, the aid package and the broader U.S. strategy underscore a commitment to defending the post-World War II international order against unilateral attempts to alter national boundaries by force. The U.S. actions are designed to send a strong message to Russia and other potential aggressors that international aggression will meet a coordinated and robust response.

While the immediate focus is on military and logistical support to Ukraine, the long-term goals involve a stable and secure Europe, where democratic values and international laws are upheld. This strategy also highlights the necessity for a

unified and strong NATO alliance in dealing with global security threats, emphasizing the need for collective action in the face of unilateral aggression.

Europe Without America:

The Security Challenges and Uncertain Future

Bottom Line: The geopolitical landscape in Europe is profoundly shaped by the security order established post-World War II and expanded post-Cold War, heavily reliant on U.S. involvement. This long-standing arrangement, characterized by American military and economic predominance, is now facing potential upheaval due to shifts in U.S. policy and attention, particularly with the rising focus on East Asia and the threat of a changing U.S. political landscape. This dependency on American power highlights Europe's vulnerability in maintaining security and stability independently, especially as U.S. priorities evolve.

· During the Cold War and after, Europe served as a strategic 'chessboard' for global superpowers, with peace maintained largely through American military presence and the threat of NATO's collective security. However, internal European security mechanisms have remained underdeveloped, relying instead on the U.S. to deter external threats and maintain internal stability. The potential diminishment or withdrawal of U.S. forces and support, speculated under administrations like that of Donald Trump, poses a significant risk to the traditional security framework that Europe has depended on for over seven decades.

· The re-emergence of aggressive Russian actions, such as the invasion and attempted annexation of Ukraine, has rekindled security threats at Europe's borders. This situation is exacerbated by the internal discord within Europe itself, where varying political, economic, and military capabilities challenge the continent's ability to form a unified security stance. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the potential for broader conflict underscore the urgent need for a robust European defense mechanism independent of American intervention.

· As Europe contemplates a future potentially devoid of the American security umbrella, the continent faces the daunting task of redefining its security strategy. This includes possibly enhancing its military capabilities, developing a more integrated European defense posture, and navigating the delicate balance of maintaining liberty and unity while securing itself against external threats like Russia and non-European influences. The concept of a wholly independent European security framework remains complex and fraught with challenges, reflecting a deep-seated dilemma about Europe's ability to safeguard its future amidst shifting global dynamics.

Xi Jinping's

Strategic European Visit Amidst Rising Tensions

Bottom Line Chinese President Xi Jinping is set to embark on his first European tour since 2019, aiming for damage control amid growing tensions over China’s economic strategies and its stance on the Ukraine conflict. Since his last visit, the geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically; Europe's attitude towards China has cooled due to deepening trade disagreements and Beijing's increased cooperation with Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine. Xi's tour will include stops in France, Serbia, and Hungary—countries viewed as relatively pro-China within Europe. His visit comes as European authorities intensify crackdowns on espionage and as the EU considers new tariffs against Chinese trade practices, particularly concerning subsidized Chinese exports in green technologies.

· During his visit, Xi seeks to mend the strained ties caused by China's position in the Russia-Ukraine war and address the European push to de-risk from Chinese economic dependence. This visit is critical as it coincides with significant anniversaries of diplomatic relations between China and France and China and Hungary, adding a symbolic weight to his engagements. Moreover, this tour follows recent U.S. diplomatic missions to China, possibly indicating strategic timing amidst global diplomatic recalibrations. The EU has recently adopted a more confrontational trade stance towards China, initiating investigations into Chinese subsidies for electric vehicles and other sectors, which has heightened tensions.

· Chinese state media portray Xi's trip as an opportunity to foster new chapters of solidarity and cooperation with Europe. However, European leaders remain wary of the deep economic integration that has characterized their historical relationship with China. This skepticism is growing as the EU and its member states reassess their economic and strategic alignments in response to China's aggressive trade practices and geopolitical maneuvers. Italy's recent reversal of the Belt and Road Initiative underscores a broader European realignment and skepticism towards Chinese global strategies.

· The broader context of Xi's visit is the significant divergence in interests between European nations and Washington's more hawkish stance towards China, especially regarding security concerns in Ukraine. Analysts suggest that one of Xi's goals is to undermine the united front that Europe and the United States have been building, particularly in response to the Ukraine crisis. This visit will test China's ability to navigate these complex geopolitical waters, where Europe's growing concerns about trade imbalances and security issues clash with Beijing's diplomatic and economic ambitions.

Diplomatic Dilemmas:

Chancellor Scholz's Economic Focus and Its Impact on German Foreign Policy

Bottom Line: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s approach to international relations and national security has been characterized by perceived diplomatic weakness, particularly evident in his dealings with China and the broader geopolitical landscape involving the United States, NATO, Russia, and Ukraine. This perception arises from strategic decisions prioritizing short-term economic interests over long-term security and diplomatic objectives, potentially undermining Western unity and Europe's strategic posture. Scholz’s foreign policy prioritizes Germany’s immediate economic interests, potentially at the expense of broader security and diplomatic imperatives, raising concerns about Germany’s long-term geopolitical position and the effectiveness of collective Western responses to global security challenges.

· Scholz’s recent diplomatic activities, particularly his conciliatory trip to China, highlight a significant divergence from more assertive stances taken by other Western leaders. While the Biden administration in the United States has been reinforcing its competitive stance against China, Scholz has opted for a softer approach that prioritizes economic cooperation. His delegation, dominated by business leaders and ministers focused on agriculture and trade rather than strategic figures like Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck or Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, indicates a preference for economic engagement over strategic confrontation.

· The underlying strategy of Scholz’s approach is driven by Germany’s significant economic ties with China, especially in the automotive sector, which is crucial for Germany’s economic health as it transitions to electric vehicles (EVs). This dependency appears to steer Germany’s cautious stance on contentious issues such as human rights and China’s support for Russia in the Ukraine conflict, reflecting a delicate balance to maintain access to the Chinese market while managing competitive threats.

Regarding relations with the United States and NATO, Scholz’s policy has sparked concerns about misalignment with broader Western objectives, particularly against the backdrop of geopolitical challenges posed by Russia and China. This approach risks contributing to the fragmentation of the transatlantic alliance, which is crucial for countering Russian aggression and Chinese strategic ambitions. Furthermore, Germany’s economically focused diplomacy may limit the EU’s ability to form credible partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region with nations like India and Japan, who view China’s rise as a direct threat. Scholz’s handling of the Ukraine crisis also illustrates a cautious approach, preferring private diplomacy over public condemnation of China’s support for Russia, contrasting sharply with the more vocal responses of other Western nations.

Growing Anger:

Crackdowns in the Arab World Over Gaza Conflict

Bottom Line: The recent intensification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has spurred a wave of pro-Palestinian protests across the Arab world, highlighting deep-seated tensions between the public and governments over relations with Israel and the U.S. Despite state-sponsored denunciations of Israel and displays of aid sent to Gaza, governments like Egypt's are quickly suppressing public dissent when it threatens to criticize their own policies. In April 2024, Egyptian security detained protesters in Cairo who voiced opposition, reflecting a regional pattern where expressions of solidarity with Palestine can result in government retaliation.

· This crackdown is particularly severe in Morocco and Jordan, where recent demonstrations have also led to numerous arrests. In Morocco, the authorities have detained individuals for anti-Israeli protests and social media criticism of the government’s diplomatic moves towards Israel. Jordan has experienced similar unrest, with Amnesty International reporting the arrest of about 1,500 people since October 2023 related to pro-Palestinian protests. The Jordanian government insists these measures are to prevent discord, yet they highlight the broader regional discomfort with the Palestinian cause being linked to calls for greater domestic freedoms.

· In countries pursuing or maintaining normalized relations with Israel, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the repression is even more pronounced. The sensitivity to any dissent has stifled open discussion of their diplomatic policies towards Israel, driven by both historical ties and contemporary strategic interests, including security collaborations against perceived threats like Iran. The use of Israeli surveillance tools by some Gulf states to monitor dissent has only further cemented public perception of the autocratic nature of these regimes.

· The tension between public sentiment and governmental policy indicates a significant political divide. Many Arabs view the Palestinian struggle as a broader fight against oppression, paralleling their own desires for justice and political freedom. Governments, meanwhile, justify their relationships with Israel as strategic necessities or steps towards regional stability. This dissonance suggests that without more representative governance, normalization agreements with Israel might not achieve the desired stability, as they do not reflect the will of most of their populations.

U.S. and Saudi Arabia:

Nearing a Historic Security and Diplomatic Agreement

Bottom Line: The United States and Saudi Arabia are on the brink of finalizing a historic agreement that promises to significantly reshape the political landscape of the Middle East. This pact, expected to be finalized soon due to accelerated negotiations in recent weeks, aims to provide Saudi Arabia with security guarantees and establish a potential pathway for diplomatic relations with Israel. Originally intended as a trilateral agreement to isolate Iran, the revised pact focuses equally on pressuring Israel while bolstering the security frameworks of both the US and Saudi Arabia against common regional threats, particularly from Iran and, indirectly, China.

· The US sees This development as a strategic maneuver to reinforce its influence in the Middle East amidst complex geopolitical shifts, including growing tensions with China. By securing a deal with Saudi Arabia, the US not only strengthens its geopolitical stance but also ensures that one of its key regional allies has enhanced security assurances. This agreement could also pave the way for more stable diplomatic relations across the Middle East, especially concerning Israel, potentially leading to a new era of cooperation and security alignment.

· The pact comes at a critical time when global and regional dynamics are increasingly volatile, with the US administration under President Joe Biden looking to solidify its foreign policy achievements. The agreement notably differs from its initial version, which focused on forming a united front against Iran. Now, the revised agreement includes mechanisms that could moderate Israel's regional policies, which may be necessary to gain broader acceptance for the pact within the region.

· In addition to geopolitical implications, the agreement reflects a broader strategy by both countries to address multiple challenges, including security concerns, economic relations, and the need for technological cooperation in defense. This pact, if successful, could lead to a more interconnected and diplomatically engaged Middle East, aligning closer with US interests while potentially bringing stability to one of the most turbulent regions in the world.

REFERENCES

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/world/middleeast/gaza-arab-protests-crackdown.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2024.2332054

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/03/china-xi-jinping-europe-trip-trade-france-serbia-hungary/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-01/bloomberg-evening-briefing-us-saudi-arabia-said-to-be-near-historic-pact

https://jamestown.org/program/moscow-seemingly-escalates-confrontation-with-europe/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/09/russia-rosatom-nuclear-uranium-sanctions-war-putin-ukraine/

strategycentral.io · May 5, 2024

18. College protests. A Trump trial. Raging wars. Is everything ‘on fire’?

These are the conditions and effects those who are executing unrestricted warfare, the three warfares (and in particular psychological warfare) ,active measures, political warfare, and Dich Van (action among enemy's people) want us to feel. They want to create culture wars that will engulf the US. And they will be successful unless Americans "wake up" to the threat (and it is not about being "woke" – they are exploiting that concept to the fullest). And we should remember that the key to their success is for us to blame the "other" Americans.

College protests. A Trump trial. Raging wars. Is everything ‘on fire’?

Americans have been thrust under a cloud of chaos that seems to thicken with every breaking-news alert. And there is seemingly no relief ahead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/04/university-protest-trump-trial-israel-gaza-ukraine-news/

By Reis Thebault and Hannah Natanson

May 5, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EDT

Pro-Palestinian protesters are seen Tuesday at City College of New York as police crack down on protest encampments there. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Listen

14 min

Share

Comment

160

Add to your saved stories

Save

This has been a superlative spring, in the worst ways. The largest campus protest movement of the 21st century. The first criminal trial of a former U.S. president. Some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation. And, on top of it all, two world-rattling wars whose horrific daily death tolls are so often overshadowed by domestic crises.

From coast to coast, Americans have been thrust under a cloud of chaos that seems to thicken with every breaking-news alert. And in an already contentious and consequential election year, there is seemingly no relief ahead.

“Everything is on fire,” said Preeti Kulkarni, a freshman at George Washington University, whose campus in the nation’s capital has been riven by clashes over Israel’s war in Gaza.

For those who lived through the anti-apartheid protests in the 1980s, or the Vietnam War demonstrations of the ’60s and ’70s, the current tumult — and the way it has collided with broader social and political upheaval — echoes some especially tense times in the country’s history.

But if the present moment has been one of discontent, it has also been one of dissonance. Polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans are generally satisfied with their personal lives. Yet roughly the same share is dissatisfied with the direction the country is headed.​ Unemployment is at its lowest level in decades, yet voters continue to register their displeasure with President Biden’s handling of the economy.

Students watch as pro-Israel protesters assemble near Columbia University and pro-Palestinian student demonstrators occupy the so-called Gaza Solidarity Encampment on the West Lawn of the campus in New York on April 25. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

And despite wall-to-wall coverage of campus protests, in one national survey of young people — conducted before the latest round of uprisings — the Israel-Gaza war rated near the bottom of issues that respondents said were most important to them overall. In that same poll, just 17 percent of college students said they had attended a political rally or demonstration.

Still, historians confirm that this is a troubled and exceptional era, in which deep divisions have infected nearly every inch of public life, from politics to pop culture.

“There has been an erosion of democratic values and a rising political tribalism that I think is extremely dangerous,” said Robert Cohen, a history professor at New York University who has spent decades studying student activism. “The way politics is functioning now is so unhealthy that almost anything can happen. Even the Taylor Swift romance gets spun as some conspiracy — and that’s a really bad place.”

‘I’m getting so stressed’

The turmoil on college campuses is playing out both publicly — in encampments set up on quads and in occupied buildings — and privately, over text and in direct messages.

For Kulkarni, this new tension reached a personal peak a few weeks ago, when she got a blistering message from a pro-Palestinian friend. She was incensed that Kulkarni had just posted an Instagram photo posing with another friend who supports Zionism.

“You lack humanity,” the friend wrote. “I’m done with your friendship. … I hope that in the future you educate yourself on the ongoing situation in Palestine.”

The message stunned the 18-year-old, who was sitting in a study room, scrambling to finish an essay on Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex.”

“That was so jarring, because people have different beliefs all the time,” Kulkarni said in a later interview. “We live in a society, we have to interact with people who may not agree with us.”

A flower arrangement that reads “Free Palestine” is seen April 27 during a demonstration at the University of Southern California in support of Palestinians in Gaza. (David Swanson/Reuters)

Then she wondered: Do we live in a society anymore? Her former friend’s outrage seemed somehow inevitable, a microcosm of the national discourse. Kulkarni sent a long response, which read in part: “I believe issues are a lot more complex than you think they are, and compromise can best be achieved through open discourse and collaboration.”

This person, she thought, did not seem willing to have a nuanced dialogue. So Kulkarni blocked the number.

A tendency to demonize those one disagrees with is one of the more frightening features of this moment, Cohen said.

He had enjoyed more than 30 years in his mostly quiet corner of research — radical student politics — until a couple of weeks ago, when a deluge of media requests began flooding his inbox from around the world, as reporters asked him to compare current campus protests with those past.

While the demonstrations — which call for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and university divestment from companies said to be profiting off the war — have spread quickly and the police crackdown has been severe, they are still much smaller than those that unfolded around Vietnam, Cohen said.

The scope of the demonstrations and the demands of the students, he said, more closely resemble the fight against South African apartheid in the 1980s, when organizers likewise called for university divestment. But at that time, Cohen added, there were no visible campus forces defending the apartheid regime. Today, pro-Palestinian groups, counterprotesters and police have converged at the encampments, with sometimes violent results.

Students and members of the news media watch and listen as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) holds a news conference after a visit with Jewish students at Columbia University in New York on April 24. (Yana Paskova for The Washington Post)

One undeniable similarity, Cohen said, is the way elected officials, especially far-right Republicans, have sought to politicize the demonstrations, accusing liberal university leaders of allowing far-left students to run amok, as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said at Columbia University last week.

For Cohen, Johnson’s performance paralleled the 1966 California governor’s race, in which then-candidate Ronald Reagan prevailed by promising to “clean up the mess at Berkeley” following the university’s antiwar protests.

“They always want to conflate the liberal university’s leadership with the radicals who are disobeying university leadership,” Cohen said. “This is an old playbook.”

As rhetoric on the right becomes harsher, the potential for further violence will increase, Cohen said.

At Indiana University, the specter of bloodshed loomed, literally, overhead this week, when state police snipers were spotted on the roofs of campus buildings, including at the Memorial Union, a favorite student hangout.

For Kate Hutner, a 20-year-old sophomore double-majoring in journalism and fashion design, this was the final proof: “Yeah,” she said, “America is on fire.”

That police posture was a response to a pro-Palestinian encampment set up in the grass in front of the union, and it made viscerally personal the sense of unease Hutner had been feeling for years now. This foreboding came up frequently in conversations with friends: how they don’t want to have children and bring them into a world imperiled by climate change and conflict, one where Hutner and her cohort have already lived through a seemingly endless string of mass shootings, protests and culture wars.

And now, chaos was on campus. “I’m getting so stressed,” Hutner texted a friend, noting that her professor had been arrested on campus, “now 3 of my finals are canceled like I’m anxious.”

There are only two times Hutner feels a sense of calm — when fantasizing about her summer internship in Milan, or in bed, grateful she made it to the end of another day.

“It’s like, ‘Thank goodness I can go to bed and sleep,’” she said. “Because when I’m sleeping, I’m not thinking. When I’m sleeping, I don’t have to think about any of this.”

A protester is loaded into a police van after his arrest during a pro-Palestinian demonstration at Emory University in Atlanta on April 25. (Elijah Nouvelage/AFP/Getty Images)

At Emory University in Atlanta, philosophy department chair Noëlle McAfee did not intend to go viral when she wandered outside her office last week to check on the student protesters.

But what she saw shocked her: Police had swarmed the encampment and one was beating a student, who was on the ground with her hands over her head, McAfee said. She approached the officer and yelled at him to stop. Moments later, the professor was under arrest, and footage of police leading her away quickly circulated online.

While those on social media quickly characterized her as an avatar for either Palestinian solidarity or anti-Israel sentiment, she has tried to avoid taking sides. Instead, McAfee has tried to be an advocate for academic freedom, public discussion and the right to protest — values she said school administrations subvert when they call in police to shut down demonstrations. Rather than escalate the situation, she said, school leaders should engage with protesters and attempt to work through the polarization, as seen at Brown and Northwestern universities.

“Instead of bringing in police and tearing down encampments, why don’t you go to REI and get a tent and sit down and talk with the students?” McAfee said. “What are you afraid of?”

‘Unprecedented times and uncharted territory’

Near the southern tip of Manhattan, more than 120 blocks from Columbia, where student protesters sparked this latest wave of demonstration, former president Donald Trump has been staging his own kind of seething sit-in, behind the closed doors of a drab art deco courthouse​.

Trump, of course, is not on trial by choice — indeed, his legal team sought to delay the court date for as long as possible. But ever since the proceeding began in mid-April — the first involving a former president — Trump has been exercising his right to dissent, even if it means violating a gag order.

In recent days, he has returned to a frequent fixation: crowd size. More specifically, Trump has complained that courthouse security has prevented “thousands of MAGA supporters to be present.”

“If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

Students on Tuesday watch as New York Police Department officers prepare to enter Columbia University to clear the pro-Palestinian encampment and Hamilton Hall, where protesters had barricaded themselves inside. (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

While the college demonstrations have occasionally eclipsed Trump’s hush money trial, the proceeding is historic. It is the first of four criminal cases against the 45th president to go to trial, and last month it intersected with a U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the separate legal question of whether Trump can claim immunity to avoid prosecution.

Even by the former president’s standards, it has been a whirlwind.

“It is overwhelming,” said Meena Bose, the executive dean of Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy and International Affairs. The news cycle, she said, “has reached the point where I can’t quite keep up with it.”

Bose, a presidential historian, has been trying to finish an update to an American government textbook — a tall task when new history continues to be made at warp speed.

“It’s impossible to write a paragraph,” Bose said, without seeing some new development out of New York or Georgia or the Supreme Court. There are, she said, only so many ways to say that this has never happened before.

“We really are in unprecedented times and uncharted territory,” Bose said.

Former president Donald Trump, seen in a reflection on the wall, holds printouts of news stories as he speaks to reporters at the end of the day at Manhattan criminal court on April 18. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

But it is difficult to pinpoint when exactly these “unprecedented times” began, Bose said, and one could argue they date to Trump’s election in 2016, the coronavirus pandemic or the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Share this article

No subscription required to read

Share

“I think we are in a unique point in American history and it’s difficult to say how we’ll look back at this,” Bose said. “But without a doubt, American politics has become even more tumultuous in the last year than it has been for the last decade.”

A number of domestic and international issues have the potential to roil the country further in months to come.

On Wednesday, a near-total ban on abortion took effect in Florida, the nation’s third-most populous state, in what amounted to an overnight transformation of one of the South’s few remaining refuges for people seeking the procedure. For someone in the state’s southern tip, the closest abortion clinic is a 14-hour drive away.

The new restrictions come months before voters will consider a November ballot referendum that would enshrine the right to abortion in Florida’s constitution, a fight expected to be costly and hard fought.

Also on Wednesday, the Arizona House, after weeks of hand-wringing, voted to repeal a Civil War-era ban on nearly all abortions, which was set to go back into effect next month. Like Florida, the state may also consider in November a constitutional amendment to protect abortion.

The political pandemonium has effectively obscured what is usually a reliable headline grabber — war, with bloody conflicts continuing to rage in Ukraine and Gaza.

Casualty estimates for Russia’s invasion, which began more than two years ago, are notoriously difficult to pin down, but at least tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers have been killed. Estimates of the Russian death toll range from 50,000 to more than 180,000.

In Gaza, the Health Ministry says more than 34,000 people have been killed since the war began, while Israel estimates that about 1,200 people were killed during Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack that sparked its sweeping military response. Another 263 Israeli soldiers have been killed since the launch of the Israeli operation in Gaza.

Still, elected officials and the public remain divided over the role the U.S. government should play in both wars, yet another reminder of the many American rifts.

One more possible measure of our disunion: For two weeks in April, a dystopian film about a bloody alternative reality where America is at war with itself topped box office charts, grossing more than $50 million. “Civil War” is a work of speculative fiction, but some viewers emerged from theaters feeling like it captured the essence of caustic political debate in the country.

California Highway Patrol officers clear a pro-Palestinian encampment after dispersal orders were announced Thursday at the University of California at Los Angeles. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

After a screening at the Alamo Drafthouse in downtown Los Angeles, Adrian Stucker and Justin Bondy considered possible real-world parallels in the movie, which sought to avoid explicit discussion of partisan politics. In the film’s authoritarian president, the two friends saw Trump, and in the vision of an unraveled America and disintegrated democracy, they saw a conceivable future.

“It’s a scary, plausible situation,” Stucker said.

“I hope it’s not the case,” Bondy said. “But I’m afraid for this election.”

As it has so often in recent days, discord hung in the air outside the theater, too. The night before, a group of counterprotesters stormed the pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California at Los Angeles, launching fireworks and hurling wooden beams at student protesters. That same day, Trump, between appearances at his criminal trial, called for colleges to come down even harder on the demonstrators.

Stucker and Bondy have both tried to unplug from the news — for months, Bondy blocked out all sources but the NFL Network, an increasingly popular coping mechanism — but lately they have felt themselves tuning in more often, and becoming more anxious.

One reliable source of comfort, they say, comes from the knowledge that so many previous generations also thought the sky to be falling, only to keep on living. When Bondy’s grandmother, in her 90s, declares things worse than ever, his mother chimes in with: The 1960s would like a word.

“I don’t think it’s the end of the world,” Stucker said.

But, like many Americans, they’re bracing for whatever is ahead.

“I guess,” he added, “it’s a good time to go to a bar.”

Share

160

Comments

By Reis Thebault

Reis Thebault reports on the American West Coast from Los Angeles for The Washington Post. He joined The Post in 2018 and has covered national breaking news, European politics and D.C. city hall. He previously worked on the local desks of the Boston Globe and the Columbus Dispatch. Twitter

By Hannah Natanson

Hannah Natanson is a Washington Post reporter covering national K-12 education. Twitter

19. North Korean weapons are killing Ukrainians. The implications are far bigger

Everyone neglects north Korea and its potential impact.

Graphics, maps, and photos at the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68933778

Excerpts:

For all the recent talk of Kim Jong Un preparing to start a nuclear war, the more immediate threat is now North Korea's ability to fuel existing wars and feed global instability.

Ms Kimachuk works for Conflict Armament Research (CAR), an organisation that retrieves weapons used in war, to work out how they were made. But it wasn't until after she had finished photographing the wreckage of the missile and her team analysed its hundreds of components, that the most jaw-dropping revelation came.

It was bursting with the latest foreign technology. Most of the electronic parts had been manufactured in the US and Europe over the past few years. There was even a US computer chip made as recently as March 2023. This meant that North Korea had illicitly procured vital weapons components, snuck them into the country, assembled the missile, and shipped it to Russia in secret, where it had then been transported to the frontline and fired - all in a matter of months.

"This was the biggest surprise, that despite being under severe sanctions for almost two decades, North Korea is still managing to get its hands on all it needs to make its weapons, and with extraordinary speed," said Damien Spleeters, the deputy director at CAR.

North Korean weapons are killing Ukrainians. The implications are far bigger

BBC · by Jean Mackenzie,

Advertisement

Watch

43 minutes ago

Seoul correspondent

BBC

An unusual-looking wreckage that hold many clues

On 2 January, a young Ukrainian weapons inspector, Krystyna Kimachuk, got word that an unusual-looking missile had crashed into a building in the city of Kharkiv. She began calling her contacts in the Ukrainian military, desperate to get her hands on it. Within a week, she had the mangled debris splayed out in front of her at a secure location in the capital Kyiv.

She began taking it apart and photographing every piece, including the screws and computer chips smaller than her fingernails. She could tell almost immediately this was not a Russian missile, but her challenge was to prove it.

Buried amidst the mess of metal and spouting wires, Ms Kimachuk spotted a tiny character from the Korean alphabet. Then she came across a more telling detail. The number 112 had been stamped onto parts of the shell. This corresponds to the year 2023 in the North Korean calendar. She realised she was looking at the first piece of hard evidence that North Korean weapons were being used to attack her country.

"We'd heard they had delivered some weapons to Russia, but I could see it, touch it, investigate it, in a way no-one had been able to do before. This was very exciting", she told me over the phone from Kyiv.

Since then, the Ukrainian military says dozens of North Korean missiles have been fired by Russia into its territory. They have killed at least 24 people and injured more than 70.

For all the recent talk of Kim Jong Un preparing to start a nuclear war, the more immediate threat is now North Korea's ability to fuel existing wars and feed global instability.

Ms Kimachuk works for Conflict Armament Research (CAR), an organisation that retrieves weapons used in war, to work out how they were made. But it wasn't until after she had finished photographing the wreckage of the missile and her team analysed its hundreds of components, that the most jaw-dropping revelation came.

It was bursting with the latest foreign technology. Most of the electronic parts had been manufactured in the US and Europe over the past few years. There was even a US computer chip made as recently as March 2023. This meant that North Korea had illicitly procured vital weapons components, snuck them into the country, assembled the missile, and shipped it to Russia in secret, where it had then been transported to the frontline and fired - all in a matter of months.

"This was the biggest surprise, that despite being under severe sanctions for almost two decades, North Korea is still managing to get its hands on all it needs to make its weapons, and with extraordinary speed," said Damien Spleeters, the deputy director at CAR.

Over in London, Joseph Byrne, a North Korea expert at the defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), was equally stunned.

"I never thought I would see North Korean ballistic missiles being used to kill people on European soil," he said. He and his team at RUSI have been tracking the shipment of North Korean weapons to Russia ever since Mr Kim met his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Russia in September of last year to strike a suspected arms deal.

Using satellite imagery, they have been able to observe four Russian cargo ships shuttling back and forth between North Korea and a Russian military port, loaded with hundreds of containers at a time.

In total RUSI estimates 7,000 containers have been sent, filled with more than a million ammunition shells and grad rockets - the sort that can be fired out of trucks in large volleys. Their assessments are backed up by intelligence from the US, UK and South Korea, though Russia and North Korea have denied the trade.

"These shells and rockets are some of the most sought-after things in the world today and are allowing Russia to keep pounding Ukrainian cities at a time when the US and Europe have been faltering over what weapons to contribute," Mr Byrne said.

Buying and firing

But it is the arrival of ballistic missiles on the battlefield that has concerned Mr Byrne and his colleagues the most, because of what they reveal about North Korea's weapons programme.

Since the 1980s North Korea has sold its weapons abroad, largely to countries in the North Africa and the Middle East, including Libya, Syria and Iran. They have tended to be old, Soviet-style missiles with a poor reputation. There is evidence that Hamas fighters likely used some of Pyongyang's old rocket-propelled grenades in their attack last 7 October.

• Putin and Kim: Friends in need (of ammunition)
• What weapons are being supplied to Ukraine?
• What missiles has North Korea been testing?

But the missile fired on 2 January, that Ms Kimachuk took apart, was seemingly Pyongyang's most sophisticated short-range missile - the Hwasong 11 - capable of travelling up to 700km (435 miles).

Although the Ukrainians have downplayed their accuracy, Dr Jeffrey Lewis, an expert in North Korean weapons and non-proliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, says they appear to be not much worse than the Russian missiles.

The advantage of these missiles is that they are extremely cheap, explained Dr Lewis. This means you can buy more and fire more, in the hope of overwhelming air defences, which is exactly what the Russians appear to be doing.

This then raises the question of how many of these missiles the North Koreans can produce. The South Korean government recently observed North Korea has sent 6,700 containers of munitions to Russia, it says that Pyongyang's weapons factories were operating at full-tilt, and Dr Lewis, who has been studying these factories through satellites, reckons they can churn out a few hundred a year.

Still reeling from their discovery, Mr Spleeters and his team are now trying to work out how this is possible, given that companies are banned from selling parts to North Korea.

Many of the computer chips that are integral to modern weapons, that guide them through the air to their intended targets, are the same chips that are used to power our phones, washing machines and cars, says Mr Spleeters.

These are being sold all over the world in staggering numbers. Manufacturers sell to distributors in their billions, who sell them on in their millions, meaning they often have no idea where their products end up.

Even so, Mr Byrne was frustrated to learn how many components in the missile had come from the West. It proved that North Korea's procurement networks were more robust and effective than even he, who investigates these networks, had realised.

From his experience, North Koreans based overseas set up fake companies in Hong Kong or other central Asian countries to buy the items using predominantly stolen cash. They then send the products onto North Korea, usually over its border with China. If a fake company is discovered and sanctioned, another will quickly pop up in its place.

Sanctions have long been considered an imperfect tool to combat these networks, but to have any hope of working they need to be regularly updated and enforced. Both Russia and China have refused to impose new sanctions on North Korea since 2017.

By buying Pyongyang's weapons, Moscow is now violating the very sanctions it once voted for as a member of the UN Security Council. Then earlier this year it effectively disbanded a UN panel that monitored sanctions breaches, likely to avoid scrutiny.

"We are witnessing the real-time crumbling of UN sanctions against North Korea, which buys Pyongyang a lot of breathing space", Mr Byrne said.

All this has implications that reach far beyond the war in Ukraine.

"The real winners here are the North Koreans", said Mr Byrne. "They have helped the Russians in a significant way, and this has bought them a tonne of leverage".

In March, RUSI documented large amounts of oil being shipped from Russia to North Korea, while railcars filled with what are thought to be rice and flour have been spotted crossing the countries' land border. This deal, thought to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, will boost not only Pyongyang's economy, but its military.

Russia could supply the North with the raw materials to continue making its missiles, or even military equipment such a fighter jets, and - at the most extreme end - the technical assistance to improve its nuclear weapons.

Additionally, the North is getting the chance to test its latest missiles in a real-war scenario for the first time. With this valuable data, it will be able to make them better.

Pyongyang: A major missile supplier?

More troubling still is that the war is providing North Korea with a shop window to the rest of the world.

Now that Pyongyang is mass producing these weapons, it will want to sell them to more countries, and if the missiles are good enough for Russia, they will be good enough for others, said Dr Lewis - especially as the Russians are setting the example that it is okay to violate sanctions.

He predicts going forward that North Korea will become a big supplier of missiles to countries in the China-Russia-Iran bloc. In the wake of Iran's assault on Israel this month, the US said it was "incredibly concerned" that North Korea could be working with Iran on its nuclear and ballistic weapons programmes.

"I see a lot of gloomy faces when we talk about this problem," said Mr Spleeters. "But the good news is that now we know how reliant they are on foreign technology, we can do something about it".

Mr Spleeters is optimistic that by working with manufacturers they can cut off North Korea's supply chains. His team has already succeeded in identifying and shutting down an illicit network before it was able to complete a critical sale.

But Dr Lewis is not exactly convinced.

"We can make it harder, more inconvenient, maybe raise the cost, but none of this is going to prevent North Korea from making these weapons," he said, adding that the West had ultimately failed in its attempt to contain the rogue state.

Now not only are its missiles a source of prestige and political power, but they are also generating it vast amounts of money, explains Dr Lewis. So why would Kim Jong Un ever give them up now?

What weapons are being supplied to Ukraine?

What $61bn US aid boost could mean for Ukraine

Russia said to be using N Korean missiles in Ukraine

What missiles has North Korea been testing?

Kim and Putin go public – but is it all a show?

Putin and Kim: Friends in need (of ammunition)

The hidden village just metres from North Korea

North Korea says it's got eyes on the White House - so what?

War in Ukraine

Asia

North Korea

Watch

• Home
• News
• Sport
• Business
• Innovation
• Culture
• Travel
• Earth
• Video
• Live
• Audio
• Weather
• BBC Shop
• Terms of Use
• About the BBC
• Privacy Policy
• Cookies
• Accessibility Help
• Contact the BBC
• Advertise with us
• Do not share or sell my info
• Contact technical support

Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

BBC · by Jean Mackenzie,

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com