southfront--2020-11-01--A Return to Containment: Kennan and the Responsible Use of Power – Part 3

THE PREVIOUS PARTS CAN BE FOUND HERE : FIRST , SECOND The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the US as the sole remaining superpower and so began the era of US global hegemony .
In the absence of a major adversary , there was no longer any urgency in : Without the counterbalancing role of the Soviet Union , unrestrained US foreign policy became not only more unilateral , but also increasingly outside the norms of international law ; such as the NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans under Clinton and Bush ’ s invasion of Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal .
However , Bush took things much further .
On Oct. 20 , 2001 , President Bush outlined in a public address to Congress , a nightmarish vision of world tyranny : There will be no middle ground , no neutrality and no higher law than the hegemon , being exempted from the rules applied so vigorously to others .
LINK The US constitution specified separation of powers across three branches ; legislative , executive and judicial as a safeguard against tyranny , but Article II , Section 3 places authority over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch giving wide latitude to its head – the President .
Thus , the Constitution was technically not violated when President Bush rolled out his tyrannical ‘ us versus them ’ foreign policy .
LINK But the lawlessness of Bush ’ s foreign policy has had far-reaching consequences .
Over time , the intoxicating use of unchecked power corrupted the international system to the point of its destruction , and proved fatal to maintaining US global hegemony : If there is nothing worse , then nations have little to lose by standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mounting opposition would eventually bring an end to US hegemonic supremacy when in 2017 the US military announced return to great power rivalry .
LINK ( Page 1 Version 2.0 ) Despite the end of global hegemony , the US maintains superpower status and has engaged in superpower rivalry with China : Has the US stumbled its way into a New Cold War or was it by design ?
If by design , a prime suspect would be the US military establishment ( MIC ) which has the power to influence US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system under US hegemony would lead to public pressure to cut military spending and possibly general global disarmament .
In contrast , the first Cold War was characterized by the need for large military expenditures over decades .
From Eisenhower ’ s January 1961 farewell address : The need to contain Soviet expansion justified large military budgets to preserve a stable international system ; war without war , a ‘ Cold War ’ .
Thus , my premise is that the US military intentionally destroyed its own hegemony in order to engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such a development is even desirable according to Kenneth Waltz , architect of the Realist branch of Defensive Realism : The first Cold War was a struggle between competing ideologies – democracy , open society and free markets versus communist authoritarianism , closed society and command economy .
And the New Cold War is already shaping up to be much like the first Cold War , a war of ideologies .
China fits the role well given the ideology of the ruling CCP has similarities to communist ideology of the Soviet Union .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ; Eurasianist ideology .
LINK China is second to the US in military and economic power and identified as the primary threat to the US by Defence Secretary Mark Esper ’ s 2020 update of the 2018 NDS : To have a deeper understanding of the perspective of the US military establishment , we need to examine MIC self-interest and its basis of power to influence US policy .
Internal power arrangements matter when trying to understand the policies and actions of nation states .
The influence wielded by the U.S. military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Complex ) which is the basis of power to influence US policy .
Although the power of the MIC is substantial , there are limits to its influence over policy .
With the end of the Cold War , the US possessed a supreme military but the Soviet Union was no more and China was not yet a threat .
In fact , no one was a threat .
Having ‘ won ’ the Cold War , the public expected a ‘ peace dividend ’ ( LINK ) putting Congress under pressure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the military budget shrank 15 % – the reduction was to be larger but the MIC was able to convince Congress to soften the blow .
LINK Even with a 15 % cut to military expenditures , the US Military outspent the next nine top ranking nations in military spending combined , a military dominance that continues to this day although China has very rapidly risen in the ranks to 2nd place – below are the 2019 top six countries by military spending ( USD ) : ** China ’ s military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Western analysts believe actual spending is 1.5 times higher .
The US is a global power with global commitments and so the US does not and can not direct all of its military power to countering China .
There is also the historical trajectory of China showing its steady rise to dominance in East Asia : Other nations that are deepening their military relationship with the US in confronting China are : Japan , South Korea , Australia and Taiwan – and are major buyers of US armaments as the region becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be a banner year for US arms exports as concerns grow among China ’ s neighbors of CCP intentions : The US from 2009-2018 increased its market share from 30 % to 36 % , likely now even higher given Trump ’ s strong support for expanding arms export markets including China ’ s neighbors ( LINK ) and now the primary arms supplier to India .
LINK The top 6 arms exporters by market share for 2018 are : China has been increasing its arms sales at a blistering pace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take 5th place , and china is expected to further increase its share of the global arms trade .
LINK The Global Arms Trade : Geographic Market Diversification and Economies of Scale US military manufacturers seek export growth to achieve greater economies of scale to drive down costs-per-unit and can address the issue of demand volatility due to reliance on the US as sole buyer .
LINK Growing US military sales to the far east could offset geographic risk due to most prior export growth having come primarily from the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of all arms exports .
Low oil prices have forced OPEC nations to reduce expenditures that will likely end the spending spree on advanced military systems – Saudi Arabia has already cut military expenditures by 14 % since 2018 .
LINK Arms manufacturers can be expected to aggressively seek out new export markets not only for reducing unit costs and diversifying risk , but also to increase influence since increased exports means greater military related economic activity in congressional districts enhancing influence over lawmakers .
However , there are issues that arise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms exports .
The Political Economy of Human Rights and the Global Arms Trade One issue is exporting weapons to highly repressive regimes .
Arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) has been highly controversial given their track record on human rights and involvement in the war in Yemen – home to the world ’ s number one humanitarian crisis : There is growing bi-partisan Congressional opposition to the Trump administration ’ s arms sales to Saudi Arabia , the UAE and bypassing Congress .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Inspector General it was found : And Pompeo countered an ‘ idealistic ’ Congress by accusing “ lawmakers of “ caterwauling ” about Saudi Arabia ’ s human-rights record and ignoring the kingdom ’ s pivotal role in helping the U.S. counter Iran .
” There is an interplay between Idealism that defines the boundaries of what is legitimate action and Realism that filters out what is not feasible or bears unacceptable risks .
Properly balanced , Idealism and Realism together bring clarity and purpose to both the formulation of policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With respect to armaments exports to Saudi Arabia and the UAE , Pompeo ’ s position is that failure to do so bears unacceptable risks to the security of the US and allies .
However , a 2018 poll found 70 % of Americans believe selling weapons to other countries makes the U.S. less safe , opposing sales to Saudi Arabia and Syria ( LINK ) : • In 2018 , U.S. selling weapons to Saudi Arabia ; 21 % supported , 54 % opposed , 25 % unsure • In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-government groups in Syria ; 25 % supported , 67 % opposed , 9 % unsure Another 2018 survey , conducted by YouGov and commissioned by the International Rescue Committee relief group , highlighted how unaware Americans nationwide were about the Yemen conflict : Since 2018 , the public has become more knowledgeable about the sales of arms and its role in the Yemen conflict that has prompted Congress to more aggressively challenge the Trump administration .
For example , the US Senate made three attempts to override Trump ’ s presidential veto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration from “ bypassing Congress to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ” .
LINK The issue of arms sales has also been playing out on the world stage where the humanitarian crisis in Yemen has attracted media coverage of human rights abuses and alleged war crimes in Yemen – the United Nations has been vocal in its criticism of the belligerent parties in Yemen and weapon suppliers : Although Pompeo argued bypassing Congress was in the best interests of US national security , the Trump administration has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exports , particularly in job creation .
This plays to fulfilling Trump ’ s campaign promises and to the interests of lawmakers whose districts stand to benefit from increased hires by weapon manufacturers .
The focus on economic considerations is unusual , representing : In April 2018 , Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum ( NSPM-10 ) , which updated the Conventional Arms Transfer ( CAT ) Policy , instructing that domestic economic concerns be given greater weight than had been the case in the past .
The problem is the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ component against other criteria such as security risks .
The consideration of makes sense given US refusal to sell armaments often results in a less scrupulous nation to step in and make the sale .
The concern here is a ‘ race to the bottom ’ where anything goes .
Economic benefits have been exaggerated by an order of magnitude – recent arms-deals with Saudi Arabia have been estimated to create up to 40,000 jobs in contrast to Trump ’ s multiple claims to the media of 450,000 to 600,000 jobs created .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawing attention to new jobs to manufacture weapons used against women and children in far away lands – which may explain why Pompeo focused on national security to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE .
Still , in rewriting policy the Trump team have shown creativity : I return to the question of balancing Realism and Idealism in policy formulation and actions .
CAT policy in regard to the purchasing nation involves balancing concerns of national security , human rights , diplomatic relations and economic security in the decision process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given any priority over the other , the decision is subjective with implication for US national security and for other nations , as is the case for Yemen .
It is important then to understand who are making the decisions : The problem with this argument is that the arms manufacturers have their former executives and lobbyists planted in important positions in the State Department , the Whitehouse and the Pentagon .
And it goes both ways with high ranking government officials taking lucrative positions with the arms manufacturers .
Thus , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formulation and the decision process .
Given the vague priorities in CAT policy , those with ties to the arms makers are unlikely to prioritize human rights , and even national security – which is a concern that has been frequently raised in the combat-ready challenged F-35 Program .
The revolving door of personnel to and from the government and weapons makers is , when adding Congress , referred to as ‘ The Iron Triangle ’ .
Economies of scale to reduce per unit cost is a big issue in ramping up production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fighter : That one company is Lockheed Martin , the world ’ s largest defence contractor , and what looked good on paper became a nightmare .
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the most expensive , and behind schedule , military program ever attempted by the Pentagon and exemplifies the problematic nature of the ‘ Iron Triangle ’ – discussed in William Hartung ’ s : Also , arms manufacturers buy the loyalty of politicians through generous campaign donations to those with a voting record favorable to arms manufacturers , enhancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic benefits of military contracts are spread across many Congressional districts , which along with donations creates a powerful MIC friendly voting block that can thwart legislation unfriendly to the MIC : Over time , rewarding supportive lawmakers to increase their re-election chances while punishing unsupportive lawmakers can preserve and strengthen the pro-MIC bloc , stacking the deck further in favour of arms manufacturers – i.e .
the ‘ ’ Eisenhower warned about .
While this may be good for the MIC , it is not so good for US national interests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effective weapons platform to meet future threats , however “ the Project on Government Oversight ( POGO ) has determined [ the F-35 ] may never be ready for combat ” .
LINK The problems with F-35 combat readiness is the focus of an article in the critical of the Pentagon ’ s intention to stick to the full production roll-out schedule : The F-35 program has been so problematic that Boeing has stepped up to provide an upgraded legacy fighter – the F-15EX , but this too has been problematic : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done about this unfortunate state of affairs ?
Although the public has struggled to find their voice in the political sphere , Eisenhower believed it would be the people to reign in the MIC : In Democracies , public opinion matters which is why the obsession with polling and during Eisenhower ’ s administration the public reigned in a dangerous nuclear doctrine .
Secretary of State Dulles worried about American public attitudes towards nuclear weapons , and in a National Security Council meeting ( Feb. 11 , 1953 ) , Dulles said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world opinion , we could not use an A-bomb , we should make every effort now to dissipate this feeling ” .
LINK These discussions were classified at the time but willingness to use nuclear weapons was soon made known .
When the People ’ s Republic of China ( PRC ) started shelling the Nationalist Chinese occupied islands of Jinmen and Mazu in Aug. 1954 ( first Taiwan Strait Crisis ) , and after months of bombardment , President Eisenhower held a news conference and told the American public “ in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons against military targets ‘ exactly as you would use a bullet ’ .
” LINK The American public had strongly supported Eisenhower ’ s hardline approach towards China , but after Eisenhower threatened use of tactical nuclear weapons , public support dropped dramatically to 10 % .
Oliva , Mara , , , 2018 , see p.149 , Fig .
5.1 Researchers published a study ( October 1993 ) where for the years 1965 to 1989 , a strong relationship was found between public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The period of study is during the Cold War when the MIC had an official enemy to point at to justify high military outlays .
Despite this advantage and “ a ceaseless contest over the determination of public opinion ” , there were stretches of time when public opinion of the military soured followed by significant reductions in military expenditures – particularly as the Vietnam War dragged on – like the ‘ War on Terror ’ which resulted in major cuts to the military during Obama ’ s second term : MIC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rebalance expenditures to the detriment of military spending .
Although the MIC has itself become a significant part of the US economy , lawmakers face a difficult task in selling big military budgets to the American public and efforts may fail , despite the potential negative economic effects on their congressional districts .
For the US military establishment , the solution was to destroy US hegemony and instigate a New Cold War .
The sharp pivot from Russia to China bashing is to condition Americans to see China the same way Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cold War – a major military and ideological threat requiring the US to field military assets on a large scale to maintain credible conventional and nuclear deterrence .
However , compared to the Soviet Union , China poses a greater economic threat to the US and so , “ China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was… ” .
Finally facing a credible threat to US power , for the military establishment , “ it will matter whether weapons are used ( or usable ) when they are bought ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New More Efficient and More Capable US Military Inefficiencies and corruption in military procurement and new system development programs can result in public scandals that lower support for the military as well as undermine military forces readiness and capabilities – for example , the F-35 program .
There is also the danger of selling advanced weapon systems that underdeliver on performance and overdeliver on costs .
Nations facing a real threat , such as China , will expect US weapon systems to be timely delivered and actually work ; hence Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s prioritizing efficiency and accountability in the 2018 NDS .
If the intent is to enter into a New Cold War such that the “ United States and China will be locked in a contest for decades ” , then the MIC will want to avoid a hot war in the same way a hot war was averted during the decades long first Cold War – sometimes referred to as the ‘ long peace ’ .
During the ‘ long peace ’ , large military budgets were needed to deter the Soviets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory ’ proved a disaster for the MIC – without a big bad evil adversary , how were large military budgets going to be justified ?
Similarly , the MIC wants a decades-long Cold War with China and not a hot war .
This means it is unlikely the US military will initiate a Bush style ‘ pre-emptive defence ’ to halt China ’ s rise – it would also be very costly to do so at this late stage in China ’ s development .
To prevent war with China is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
maintain a credible deterrent , peace through strength .
In a speech to the RAND Corporation , Mark Esper outlined : The US military will need to put those large military budgets to good use and take seriously Mark Esper ’ s commitment he made in the 2018 National Defence Strategy to “ [ of Defence ] ” .
If China believes they could win a fight , there probably will be a fight if we are to believe statements ( warnings ) that have come out of china : But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US will intentionally initiate war with China , if there is war , it will be a war that China initiates .
Concerns and Questions for the US to Consider Going Forward In 2015 , Xi Jinping asked senior officers of the People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) to prepare an assessment on the likelihood of a successful invasion of Taiwan based on current PLA capabilities .
The assessment concluded that the PLA was ill-prepared and an invasion of Taiwan would likely fail .
Xi acted on the assessment by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranks of the PLA .
Initially , Western analysts viewed the purge favourably , on the assumption the PLA would be demoralized and weakened by the gutting of their senior ranks .
However , consensus soon emerged that the purge will actually enhance PLA combat readiness and capabilities by restructuring into theatre commands and addressing technological innovations such as cyberwarfare and autonomous weapon systems .
LINK Xi ’ s purge was part of his plan to bring the PLA into the 21st century with the capability to invade Taiwan by 2020 .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has closed , the threat of invasion will once again loom large over Taiwan come Spring 2021 .
Xi has made clear that Taiwan accept it “ must and will be ” reunited with China even if that means use of military force .
However , Taiwan is unwilling to accept reunification terms offered by Beijing based on the Hong Kong model of “ one country , two systems ” formula LINK , especially so given Beijing ’ s draconian measures in breach of the agreement with Britain on the hand-over of Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and Taiwan is further increased as a consequence of Xi ’ s purge of the PLA following what was an honest assessment of PLA capabilities to invade Taiwan .
Analysts are concerned that Xi is now unlikely to get honest advice on prospects of military confrontation with neighbors such as Taiwan and any expected US response .
More likely is PLA generals will tell Xi what they think he wants to hear and this is dangerous .
It is unlikely the US military will retreat and instead will be “ unwilling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian mainland.
” It is in the interests of the MIC to maintain global scope in power projection since larger military expenditures are needed to fulfil global military commitments compared to regional commitments only – and a larger MIC wields more influence .
With the likelihood that the US will remain committed to containing China in a New Cold War , just as the Soviet Union was contained in the first Cold War , there is the question of what will be the respective spheres to be accepted and understood ?
Establishing mutually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a crucial element of Kennan ’ s Policy of Containment that prevented superpower conflict .
In the case of China , establishing mutually agreeable spheres will be much more problematic than was the case with the Soviet Union .
Taiwan present a very difficult choice for the US .
The US is touting likeminded Democratic ideology as a natural bond in forming ‘ Pacific NATO ’ just as the shared ideology of members of Atlanticist NATO also provided a natural bond – and this was recognized early in 2012 under Obama : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vibrant Democracy and his administration has initiated closer ties that include major arms sales of sophisticated weapon systems – and as expected , strongly condemned by Beijing .
LINK Analysts believe that under a Trump or Biden administration , deepening ties with Taiwan are expected to continue although , establishing formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan is more likely with Trump should he win a second term – there is uncertainty though around allegations that Biden is compromised regarding China , will have to see how that plays out .
If the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deepen ties , such a development presents a very serious risk of a future superpower conflict .
This ends Part 3 and I encourage reader comments on the Taiwan dilemma .
MORE ON THE TOPIC : • A Return to Containment : Kennan and the Responsible Use of Power – Part 1 • A Return to Containment : Kennan and the Responsible Use of Power – Part 2

Support SouthFront
Written by Stewart J. Melanson PhD exclusively for SouthFront
SECOND THE PREVIOUS PARTS CAN BE FOUND HERE: FIRST
Part 3: The United States Military-Industrial Complex
Executive Summary of Parts 1 and 2
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the US as the sole remaining superpower and so began the era of US global hegemony. In the absence of a major adversary, there was no longer any urgency in:
…cultivating allies and neutrals who, if neglected, might defect to the other side… Multilateral consultation diminished steadily during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton… because the practice seemed less necessary than it had during the Cold War. LINK
Without the counterbalancing role of the Soviet Union, unrestrained US foreign policy became not only more unilateral, but also increasingly outside the norms of international law; such as the NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans under Clinton and Bush’s invasion of Iraq – neither had UN sanction and were illegal. However, Bush took things much further. On Oct. 20, 2001, President Bush outlined in a public address to Congress, a nightmarish vision of world tyranny:
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. [FULL TRANSCRIPT]
There will be no middle ground, no neutrality and no higher law than the hegemon, being exempted from the rules applied so vigorously to others. LINK The US constitution specified separation of powers across three branches; legislative, executive and judicial as a safeguard against tyranny, but Article II, Section 3 places authority over conduct of foreign relations firmly with the executive branch giving wide latitude to its head – the President. Thus, the Constitution was technically not violated when President Bush rolled out his tyrannical ‘us versus them’ foreign policy. LINK
But the lawlessness of Bush’s foreign policy has had far-reaching consequences. Over time, the intoxicating use of unchecked power corrupted the international system to the point of its destruction, and proved fatal to maintaining US global hegemony:
George W. Bush’s administration …intensified unilateralism [and] tactless diplomacy …. led to an unprecedented loss of support throughout the rest of the world for the United States … The view seemed to be emerging that there could be nothing worse than American hegemony if it was to be used in this way LINK
If there is nothing worse, then nations have little to lose by standing in opposition to the global tyrant – and mounting opposition would eventually bring an end to US hegemonic supremacy when in 2017 the US military announced return to great power rivalry. LINK (Page 1 Version 2.0) Despite the end of global hegemony, the US maintains superpower status and has engaged in superpower rivalry with China:
The American military contest with China … will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was… The United States and China will be locked in a contest for decades… LINK
Has the US stumbled its way into a New Cold War or was it by design? If by design, a prime suspect would be the US military establishment (MIC) which has the power to influence US policy. The stability of an international system under US hegemony would lead to public pressure to cut military spending and possibly general global disarmament. In contrast, the first Cold War was characterized by the need for large military expenditures over decades. From Eisenhower’s January 1961 farewell address:
… we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions… This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development… LINK
The need to contain Soviet expansion justified large military budgets to preserve a stable international system; war without war, a ‘Cold War’. Thus, my premise is that the US military intentionally destroyed its own hegemony in order to engage in a New Cold War superpower rivalry. Such a development is even desirable according to Kenneth Waltz, architect of the Realist branch of Defensive Realism:
With the relative decline of US, China and America can enter into bipolar relationship much like the US and the USSR during the Cold War… Waltz …posits bipolarity as the most stable of international configurations… balancing between the US and China brings the international distribution of power into an equilibrium and averts the risk of war. LINK
The first Cold War was a struggle between competing ideologies – democracy, open society and free markets versus communist authoritarianism, closed society and command economy. And the New Cold War is already shaping up to be much like the first Cold War, a war of ideologies. China fits the role well given the ideology of the ruling CCP has similarities to communist ideology of the Soviet Union. Russia has embraced a ‘third way’; Eurasianist ideology. LINK China is second to the US in military and economic power and identified as the primary threat to the US by Defence Secretary Mark Esper’s 2020 update of the 2018 NDS:
…the priority… is to focus the Department [of Defence] on China… to drive integrated action on China first, then Russia… A vital part of that action is the training and education of personnel across the U.S. Armed Forces. Our future leaders must understand how China thinks about war …and how they fight – the way our past leaders… were once required to understand Soviet systems and doctrine. LINK [pp 1-2]
To have a deeper understanding of the perspective of the US military establishment, we need to examine MIC self-interest and its basis of power to influence US policy.
The US military-industrial complex (MIC)
Internal power arrangements matter when trying to understand the policies and actions of nation states. The influence wielded by the U.S. military is derived from the MIC (military-Industrial Complex) which is the basis of power to influence US policy. Although the power of the MIC is substantial, there are limits to its influence over policy.
With the end of the Cold War, the US possessed a supreme military but the Soviet Union was no more and China was not yet a threat. In fact, no one was a threat. Having ‘won’ the Cold War, the public expected a ‘peace dividend’ (LINK) putting Congress under pressure to slash defence spending and in the end, the military budget shrank 15% – the reduction was to be larger but the MIC was able to convince Congress to soften the blow. LINK
Even with a 15% cut to military expenditures, the US Military outspent the next nine top ranking nations in military spending combined, a military dominance that continues to this day although China has very rapidly risen in the ranks to 2nd place – below are the 2019 top six countries by military spending (USD):
Source: LINK
** China’s military spending is officially $178.6 billion, but Western analysts believe actual spending is 1.5 times higher.
The US is a global power with global commitments and so the US does not and cannot direct all of its military power to countering China. There is also the historical trajectory of China showing its steady rise to dominance in East Asia:
…East Asian spending has increased from $92.8 billion in 1990 to $363 billion in 2019. Much of this growth in expenditure has been driven by China. In 1990, China constituted 23.6 percent of total East Asian expenditure. As of 2019, this number stands at 70.5 percent… in the broader regional context, the Chinese military… constitutes 52.2 percent of the total cumulative spending across all of Asia (including those in the Middle East). LINK
Other nations that are deepening their military relationship with the US in confronting China are: Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan – and are major buyers of US armaments as the region becomes increasingly militarized. LINK
The Global Arms Trade: US Domination
“The USA has further solidified its position as the world’s leading arms supplier,” says Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. LINK
2020 is turning out to be a banner year for US arms exports as concerns grow among China’s neighbors of CCP intentions:
The US State Department cleared $83.5 billion in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) for the fiscal year 2020. This amount is the highest in a single year for the Trump administration and is an increase of $15 billion from the 2019 fiscal year… Japan was Washington’s top customer for 2020, with five cases worth an estimated $27.9 billion… a significant increase in Japan’s military spending LINK
The US from 2009-2018 increased its market share from 30% to 36%, likely now even higher given Trump’s strong support for expanding arms export markets including China’s neighbors (LINK) and now the primary arms supplier to India. LINK The top 6 arms exporters by market share for 2018 are:
United States: 36% Russia: 21% France: 8% Germany: 4% China: 2% United Kingdom: 2%
China has been increasing its arms sales at a blistering pace, having recently overtaken the United Kingdom to take 5th place, and china is expected to further increase its share of the global arms trade. LINK
The Global Arms Trade: Geographic Market Diversification and Economies of Scale
US military manufacturers seek export growth to achieve greater economies of scale to drive down costs-per-unit and can address the issue of demand volatility due to reliance on the US as sole buyer. LINK
Growing US military sales to the far east could offset geographic risk due to most prior export growth having come primarily from the Middle East (LINK) which currently accounts for half of all arms exports. Low oil prices have forced OPEC nations to reduce expenditures that will likely end the spending spree on advanced military systems – Saudi Arabia has already cut military expenditures by 14% since 2018. LINK
Arms manufacturers can be expected to aggressively seek out new export markets not only for reducing unit costs and diversifying risk, but also to increase influence since increased exports means greater military related economic activity in congressional districts enhancing influence over lawmakers. However, there are issues that arise over what nations are recipients of US arms exports.
The Political Economy of Human Rights and the Global Arms Trade
One issue is exporting weapons to highly repressive regimes. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been highly controversial given their track record on human rights and involvement in the war in Yemen – home to the world’s number one humanitarian crisis:
[US Senator] Menendez laid out a case for why the Riyadh’s activities of recent months are against America’s interests and values, and that the Trump administration has jeopardized “America’s moral leadership on the world stage” by favoring Riyadh. LINK
There is growing bi-partisan Congressional opposition to the Trump administration’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and bypassing Congress. In an August 2020 report by the State Department’s Inspector General it was found:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo followed the law in declaring an “emergency” to push through an $8.1 billion weapons deal to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates… The IG’s office did not examine whether there was a true “emergency” – because the federal law at issue, the Arms Export Control Act, gives the secretary of state broad discretion in making that determination. LINK
And Pompeo countered an ‘idealistic’ Congress by accusing “lawmakers of “caterwauling” about Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record and ignoring the kingdom’s pivotal role in helping the U.S. counter Iran.” There is an interplay between Idealism that defines the boundaries of what is legitimate action and Realism that filters out what is not feasible or bears unacceptable risks.
Properly balanced, Idealism and Realism together bring clarity and purpose to both the formulation of policy and how it is put into practice. With respect to armaments exports to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Pompeo’s position is that failure to do so bears unacceptable risks to the security of the US and allies. However, a 2018 poll found 70% of Americans believe selling weapons to other countries makes the U.S. less safe, opposing sales to Saudi Arabia and Syria (LINK):
In 2018, U.S. selling weapons to Saudi Arabia; 21% supported, 54% opposed, 25% unsure
In 2016, U.S. and allies sending arms to anti-government groups in Syria; 25% supported, 67% opposed, 9% unsure
Another 2018 survey, conducted by YouGov and commissioned by the International Rescue Committee relief group, highlighted how unaware Americans nationwide were about the Yemen conflict:
58 per cent said they did not know the US sells arms and provides intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition and 64 per cent did not know about civilian casualties. LINK
Since 2018, the public has become more knowledgeable about the sales of arms and its role in the Yemen conflict that has prompted Congress to more aggressively challenge the Trump administration. For example, the US Senate made three attempts to override Trump’s presidential veto of three Congressional resolutions to block his administration from “bypassing Congress to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates”. LINK
The issue of arms sales has also been playing out on the world stage where the humanitarian crisis in Yemen has attracted media coverage of human rights abuses and alleged war crimes in Yemen – the United Nations has been vocal in its criticism of the belligerent parties in Yemen and weapon suppliers:
…the Human Rights Council … found “reasonable grounds to believe that the parties to the conflict have committed and continue to commit serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. Some of which may amount to war crimes” … We are particularly concerned with the fact that third States continue to supply arms to the parties to the conflict in Yemen… There are a few leading players … United States, France, the United Kingdom and this year we added Canada...” LINK
Although Pompeo argued bypassing Congress was in the best interests of US national security, the Trump administration has been focused on the economic benefits of arms exports, particularly in job creation. This plays to fulfilling Trump’s campaign promises and to the interests of lawmakers whose districts stand to benefit from increased hires by weapon manufacturers. The focus on economic considerations is unusual, representing:
…a fundamental change in American foreign policy under Mr. Trump that often elevates economic considerations over other ones. Where foreign arms sales in the past were mostly offered and withheld to achieve diplomatic goals, the Trump administration pursues them mainly for the profits [and jobs] they generate… with little regard for how the weapons are used. [note that the Obama administration was also very pro-arms exports]
In April 2018, Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-10), which updated the Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy, instructing that domestic economic concerns be given greater weight than had been the case in the past. The problem is the lack of guidance on how to weight the economic component against other criteria such as security risks.
CAT policy made arms sales decisions depend on US diplomatic relations with …the national security implications of …and the human rights performance of the purchasing country. [The policy does not] provide an explicit prioritization of these various concerns… [Trump] changed many parts of the process, attempting to streamline CAT and focus more upon the implications of third-party countries’ potential arms exports to the same purchasing country… Perhaps the most significant change …is that it added “economic security” as a criterion to the arms transfer decision-making process… Combined with … streamlining reforms, the change may on balance make the United States, already the leading arms exporter in the world, even more competitive. LINK
The consideration of “third-party countries’ potential arms exports” makes sense given US refusal to sell armaments often results in a less scrupulous nation to step in and make the sale. The concern here is a ‘race to the bottom’ where anything goes. Economic benefits have been exaggerated by an order of magnitude – recent arms-deals with Saudi Arabia have been estimated to create up to 40,000 jobs in contrast to Trump’s multiple claims to the media of 450,000 to 600,000 jobs created. LINK
However, there is risk in drawing attention to new jobs to manufacture weapons used against women and children in far away lands – which may explain why Pompeo focused on national security to justify arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Still, in rewriting policy the Trump team have shown creativity:
The new policy also says that consideration should be given to minimizing civilian casualties. That could potentially justify sales of “smart” bombs, which are easier to direct to specific targets. LINK
I return to the question of balancing Realism and Idealism in policy formulation and actions. CAT policy in regard to the purchasing nation involves balancing concerns of national security, human rights, diplomatic relations and economic security in the decision process. Given none of the four are given any priority over the other, the decision is subjective with implication for US national security and for other nations, as is the case for Yemen. It is important then to understand who are making the decisions:
…American arms makers who sell to the Saudis say they are accountable to shareholders and are doing nothing wrong. And because weapon sales to foreign militaries must be approved by the State Department, the companies say they don’t make policy, only follow it. LINK
The problem with this argument is that the arms manufacturers have their former executives and lobbyists planted in important positions in the State Department, the Whitehouse and the Pentagon. And it goes both ways with high ranking government officials taking lucrative positions with the arms manufacturers. Thus, the arms manufacturers have influence over both policy formulation and the decision process. Given the vague priorities in CAT policy, those with ties to the arms makers are unlikely to prioritize human rights, and even national security – which is a concern that has been frequently raised in the combat-ready challenged F-35 Program.
The revolving door of personnel to and from the government and weapons makers is, when adding Congress, referred to as ‘The Iron Triangle’.
The Iron Triangle
Economies of scale to reduce per unit cost is a big issue in ramping up production of the expensive budget-buster F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:
The Joint Strike Fighter program [is] the most ambitious aircraft development effort in the Defense Department’s history. One company would oversee design and production of three different versions of an aircraft that could be operated by the United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps as well as America’s allies, who would help offset the development costs. The project would result in a technologically superior plane that would be manufactured in such large quantities that the jets would cost no more than the older planes it would replace. LINK
That one company is Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defence contractor, and what looked good on paper became a nightmare. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the most expensive, and behind schedule, military program ever attempted by the Pentagon and exemplifies the problematic nature of the ‘Iron Triangle’ – discussed in William Hartung’s How the Military-Industrial Complex Ate America :
Just as Boeing benefited from its former Senior Vice President Patrick Shanahan’s stint as acting secretary of defense, so Raytheon is likely to cash in on the nomination of its former top lobbyist, Mike Esper, as his successor. Esper’s elevation comes shortly after another former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, left the State Department amid charges that he had improperly influenced decisions to sell Raytheon-produced guided bombs to Saudi Arabia … Fifty years ago, Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire identified the problem …the movement of high-ranking military officers into jobs with defense contractors and the reverse movement of top executives in major defense contractors into high Pentagon jobs is solid evidence of the military-industrial complex in operation. It is a real threat to the public interest… LINK
Also, arms manufacturers buy the loyalty of politicians through generous campaign donations to those with a voting record favorable to arms manufacturers, enhancing their re-election chances. Further, the economic benefits of military contracts are spread across many Congressional districts, which along with donations creates a powerful MIC friendly voting block that can thwart legislation unfriendly to the MIC:
Why do President Trump and Congress continue to funnel money into these unnecessary Department of Defense projects? Because the companies benefiting from those contracts with the DoD surround legislators with lobbyists and channel money into the campaigns of supportive candidates through their PACs. LINK
Over time, rewarding supportive lawmakers to increase their re-election chances while punishing unsupportive lawmakers can preserve and strengthen the pro-MIC bloc, stacking the deck further in favour of arms manufacturers – i.e. the ‘unwarranted influence’ Eisenhower warned about. While this may be good for the MIC, it is not so good for US national interests.
The F-35 program has been praised as an effective weapons platform to meet future threats, however “the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has determined [the F-35] may never be ready for combat”. LINK The problems with F-35 combat readiness is the focus of an article in the National Interest critical of the Pentagon’s intention to stick to the full production roll-out schedule:
The lack of standardization among vendors for the F-35’s various subsystems is one of the main drivers of problems with the Electronic Equipment Logbook feature. The outsourcing of subcontracts to about 1,500 vendors all over the country has helped buy the program widespread Congressional support, but compounds ALIS data errors, slows parts deliveries, and increases costs to the program… the operational testers should complete the original stringent testing plan agreed to by the services, the F-35 program office, and DOT&E, without succumbing to powerful political pressure to sacrifice combat-realism for expediency. Only then will anyone know if the F-35 will actually work in combat. LINK
The F-35 program has been so problematic that Boeing has stepped up to provide an upgraded legacy fighter – the F-15EX, but this too has been problematic:
The F-15EX deal is not without controversy. In 2019, people inside the Pentagon raised questions about alleged statements by the then-Deputy Secretary of Defense and former Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan promoting the F-15EX deal to Air Force officials. The Defense Department’s inspector general investigated allegations that he “took actions to promote his former employer, Boeing, and disparage its competitors, allegedly in violation of his ethical obligations.” The inspector general ultimately cleared Shanahan of all wrongdoing but the incident underscored …the problems and potential conflicts that come with appointing a former defense industry executive to such an influential Pentagon post. LINK
Here is the problem:
“… it doesn’t matter whether weapons are used (or usable), as long as they are bought”. LINK
Can anything be done about this unfortunate state of affairs? Although the public has struggled to find their voice in the political sphere, Eisenhower believed it would be the people to reign in the MIC:
President Eisenhower’s proposed counterweight to the power of the military-industrial complex was to be “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry.” And there are signs that significant numbers of individuals and organizations are beginning to pay more attention to the machinations of the arms lobby. LINK
Counter-balancing Power of Public Opinion
In Democracies, public opinion matters which is why the obsession with polling and during Eisenhower’s administration the public reigned in a dangerous nuclear doctrine. Secretary of State Dulles worried about American public attitudes towards nuclear weapons, and in a National Security Council meeting (Feb. 11, 1953), Dulles said: “in the present state of world opinion, we could not use an A-bomb, we should make every effort now to dissipate this feeling”. LINK These discussions were classified at the time but willingness to use nuclear weapons was soon made known.
When the People’s Republic of China (PRC) started shelling the Nationalist Chinese occupied islands of Jinmen and Mazu in Aug. 1954 (first Taiwan Strait Crisis), and after months of bombardment, President Eisenhower held a news conference and told the American public “in the event of war in East Asia, he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons against military targets ‘exactly as you would use a bullet’.” LINK
The American public had strongly supported Eisenhower’s hardline approach towards China, but after Eisenhower threatened use of tactical nuclear weapons, public support dropped dramatically to 10%. Oliva, Mara, Eisenhower and American Public Opinion on China , Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, see p.149, Fig. 5.1
Dulles got his answer – a resounding ‘NO’.
Researchers published a study Opinion: A Powerful Predictor of U.S. Defense Spending (October 1993) where for the years 1965 to 1989, a strong relationship was found between public opinion and changes in defence budget allocation:
Public opinion survey responses regarding the desirability of changes in defense spending can be compressed into a single variable, the public opinion balance, which, when accompanied by a control variable measuring the proportion of responses in the “residuum” (no opinion or keep the status quo), permits an accurate prediction of subsequent changes in the rate of change of defense outlays from the mid-1960s through the 1980s… One is not justified, however, in regarding public opinion as entirely autonomous or spontaneous. There occurs a ceaseless contest over the determination of public opinion… LINK
The period of study is during the Cold War when the MIC had an official enemy to point at to justify high military outlays. Despite this advantage and “a ceaseless contest over the determination of public opinion”, there were stretches of time when public opinion of the military soured followed by significant reductions in military expenditures – particularly as the Vietnam War dragged on – like the ‘War on Terror’ which resulted in major cuts to the military during Obama’s second term:
The problem appears not only in the difficulty of finding a winning strategy in the long war against acts of terrorism but having to face economic constraints that loom large in the public debate. In addition, the global financial crisis and recession have highlighted the trade-off between spending to protect against external threats and spending to provide jobs and income for citizens at home. LINK
Congressional Research Report, taken from report summary
MIC concern is when there is a push to rebalance expenditures to the detriment of military spending. Although the MIC has itself become a significant part of the US economy, lawmakers face a difficult task in selling big military budgets to the American public and efforts may fail, despite the potential negative economic effects on their congressional districts. For the US military establishment, the solution was to destroy US hegemony and instigate a New Cold War.
The sharp pivot from Russia to China bashing is to condition Americans to see China the same way Americans saw the Soviet Union during the first Cold War – a major military and ideological threat requiring the US to field military assets on a large scale to maintain credible conventional and nuclear deterrence. However, compared to the Soviet Union, China poses a greater economic threat to the US and so, “China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was…”.
Finally facing a credible threat to US power, for the military establishment, “it will matter whether weapons are used (or usable) when they are bought”.
A New Cold War Requires a New More Efficient and More Capable US Military
Inefficiencies and corruption in military procurement and new system development programs can result in public scandals that lower support for the military as well as undermine military forces readiness and capabilities – for example, the F-35 program. There is also the danger of selling advanced weapon systems that underdeliver on performance and overdeliver on costs. Nations facing a real threat, such as China, will expect US weapon systems to be timely delivered and actually work; hence Trump’s streamlining of the CAT Policy and Esper’s prioritizing efficiency and accountability in the 2018 NDS.
If the intent is to enter into a New Cold War such that the “United States and China will be locked in a contest for decades”, then the MIC will want to avoid a hot war in the same way a hot war was averted during the decades long first Cold War – sometimes referred to as the ‘long peace’. During the ‘long peace’, large military budgets were needed to deter the Soviets until the Soviet collapse where US ‘victory’ proved a disaster for the MIC – without a big bad evil adversary, how were large military budgets going to be justified?
Similarly, the MIC wants a decades-long Cold War with China and not a hot war. This means it is unlikely the US military will initiate a Bush style ‘pre-emptive defence’ to halt China’s rise – it would also be very costly to do so at this late stage in China’s development. To prevent war with China is to prepare for war with China – i.e. maintain a credible deterrent, peace through strength. In a speech to the RAND Corporation, Mark Esper outlined:
…how the Pentagon was continuing to implement the National Defense Strategy to restructure its capabilities and readiness to deter a war against China – but fight and win if necessary. LINK
The US military will need to put those large military budgets to good use and take seriously Mark Esper’s commitment he made in the 2018 National Defence Strategy to “reform the Department [of Defence] for greater efficiency and accountability”. If China believes they could win a fight, there probably will be a fight if we are to believe statements (warnings) that have come out of china:
In 1994, when he was China’s leader, Deng Xiaoping, …said: “We must bide our time and hide our capabilities.” What could he have meant? Possibly this as stated by Gen. Chi Hoation, China’s minister of defense in 1999: “War with the United States is inevitable … the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative … we must make sure that we would win this modern high-tech war that the mighty bloc headed by the U.S. hegemonists may launch to interfere with our affairs.” LINK
But as I have said, it is unlikely the US will intentionally initiate war with China, if there is war, it will be a war that China initiates.
Concerns and Questions for the US to Consider Going Forward
In 2015, Xi Jinping asked senior officers of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to prepare an assessment on the likelihood of a successful invasion of Taiwan based on current PLA capabilities. The assessment concluded that the PLA was ill-prepared and an invasion of Taiwan would likely fail.
Xi acted on the assessment by commencing a massive purge of the senior ranks of the PLA. Initially, Western analysts viewed the purge favourably, on the assumption the PLA would be demoralized and weakened by the gutting of their senior ranks. However, consensus soon emerged that the purge will actually enhance PLA combat readiness and capabilities by restructuring into theatre commands and addressing technological innovations such as cyberwarfare and autonomous weapon systems. LINK
Xi’s purge was part of his plan to bring the PLA into the 21st century with the capability to invade Taiwan by 2020. Although the window to invade Taiwan in 2020 has closed, the threat of invasion will once again loom large over Taiwan come Spring 2021. Xi has made clear that Taiwan accept it “must and will be” reunited with China even if that means use of military force. However, Taiwan is unwilling to accept reunification terms offered by Beijing based on the Hong Kong model of “one country, two systems” formula LINK, especially so given Beijing’s draconian measures in breach of the agreement with Britain on the hand-over of Hong Kong.
The possibility of conflict between China and Taiwan is further increased as a consequence of Xi’s purge of the PLA following what was an honest assessment of PLA capabilities to invade Taiwan. Analysts are concerned that Xi is now unlikely to get honest advice on prospects of military confrontation with neighbors such as Taiwan and any expected US response. More likely is PLA generals will tell Xi what they think he wants to hear and this is dangerous.
It is unlikely the US military will retreat and instead will be “unwilling to budge from the coastal shelf of the Asian mainland.” It is in the interests of the MIC to maintain global scope in power projection since larger military expenditures are needed to fulfil global military commitments compared to regional commitments only – and a larger MIC wields more influence.
With the likelihood that the US will remain committed to containing China in a New Cold War, just as the Soviet Union was contained in the first Cold War, there is the question of what will be the respective spheres to be accepted and understood? Establishing mutually understood spheres that are to be respected was a crucial element of Kennan’s Policy of Containment that prevented superpower conflict. In the case of China, establishing mutually agreeable spheres will be much more problematic than was the case with the Soviet Union.
Taiwan present a very difficult choice for the US. The US is touting likeminded Democratic ideology as a natural bond in forming ‘Pacific NATO’ just as the shared ideology of members of Atlanticist NATO also provided a natural bond – and this was recognized early in 2012 under Obama:
NATO is a political-military organization based on democratic values and able to act on them—a fact that is very attractive to democracies in the Far East. For these politically like-minded nations, NATO offers a relationship that complements to their… links with the United States. LINK
Trump has often referred to Taiwan as a vibrant Democracy and his administration has initiated closer ties that include major arms sales of sophisticated weapon systems – and as expected, strongly condemned by Beijing. LINK
The Trump administration has been edging the US towards greater strategic competition with China since 2017. The Taiwan card has thus become more relevant to the US strategic elites once again — moves such as increasing the frequency and amount of US arms sales to Taiwan, increasing the number and diversity of Taiwan-related bills in Congress, and emphasising Taiwan’s strategic importance in US Asia-Pacific strategy have all proceeded at a pace rarely seen since 1979. LINK
Analysts believe that under a Trump or Biden administration, deepening ties with Taiwan are expected to continue although, establishing formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan is more likely with Trump should he win a second term – there is uncertainty though around allegations that Biden is compromised regarding China, will have to see how that plays out.
If the US does stand by Taiwan and continues to deepen ties, such a development presents a very serious risk of a future superpower conflict. This ends Part 3 and I encourage reader comments on the Taiwan dilemma.
Stewart J. Melanson PhD
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Email: sjm@melansonwire.com
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-11-01--Weapons Of Karabakh War: Israel’s ThunderB VTOL Reconnaissance UAV

Another of the plethora of Israeli weapons that Azerbaijan uses in its armed forces , and particularly against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh is BlueBird Aero Systems ’ ThunderB UAV .
The ThunderB is a small sized tactical UAV ( 32Kg , 4m wing-span ) , “ with innovative , impressive and effective capabilities previously found only in much larger UAVs , usually with weight of above 150Kg.
” The ThunderB is a vertical take-off and landing aircraft ( VTOL ) .
Due to its long endurance capability ( 24 hours ) , its extended control range ( up to 150km ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IR and optional laser pointer payload the drone is presumably a perfect solution for long ISTAR ( Intelligence , Surveillance , Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance ) missions , mapping on demand for open area as well as urban scenarios for military , peace keeping , low intensity conflict , security , law enforcement , S & R , disaster management and commercial applications .
The new dual-hybrid ThunderB VTOL is capable of taking-off vertically from a very small ground clearing or a small marine vessel by using its quad vertical electrical motors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its long endurance horizontal fuel-injection engine , and transitioning back to a precise , vertical landing after completing its operational mission while requiring much smaller logistical footprint than required using standard launch and recovery system .
This VTOL capability is achieved by adding a VTOL kit comprising of two booms , with four vertical electrical motors , connected under the ThunderB ’ s wings , similar to the way the ThunderB carries its releasable cargo capsules .
he ThunderB VTOL combines the advantages of a fixed wing UAV ( long endurance , high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area coverage , ability to glide in case of emergency ) , with the advantages of a multi-rotor ( ability to takeoff / land in confined areas , ease of transport ) .
With the VTOL capabilities , and its unprecedented combination of long range ( 150Km ) , long endurance ( 12 hours in VTOL configuration ) , advanced Full-HD real-time video image and its ability to operate in Com-Jam and GPS denied environments , the ThunderB VTOL can take the lead in tactical land and maritime operations , where takeoff / @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ship in mid-sea , on an oil rig or in a small forest clearance , for military , HLS , protecting exclusive economic zones ( EEZ ) and economical waters as well as civilian applications .
According to Ronen Nadir , CEO of BlueBird Aero systems : “ The new VTOL capability frees the ThunderB UAS from take-off and landing space limitations , paving the way for ThunderB utilization by users who require precise point take-off and landing , together with the advanced operational capabilities already delivered by our field-proven system ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again to lead the way , be in the forefront of the technology , applying solutions as a result of lessons learnt from operational needs required by our operational customers .
BlueBird will continue to be responsive to our customer ’ s needs and supply them with cutting edge solutions to meet their challenges ” .
According to the recent edition of the Drone Databook at Bard College ’ s Center for the Study of the Drone , Bluebird UAVs are also used by India , Chile and Ethiopia .
These countries use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range of 50 kilometers .
In contrast the ThunderB , which was sold in this contract , weighs 32 kilograms and has a range of 150 kilometers .
It can also carry a small cargo under each wing , which Bluebird says can be used to drop “ essential material ” with an accurate ballistic trajectory .
MORE ON THE TOPIC :

Support SouthFront
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: PayPal: southfront@list.ru, http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
Another of the plethora of Israeli weapons that Azerbaijan uses in its armed forces, and particularly against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh is BlueBird Aero Systems’ ThunderB UAV.
The ThunderB is a small sized tactical UAV (32Kg, 4m wing-span), “with innovative, impressive and effective capabilities previously found only in much larger UAVs, usually with weight of above 150Kg.”
The ThunderB is a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL).
Due to its long endurance capability (24 hours), its extended control range (up to 150km), and its triple CCD, cooled IR and optional laser pointer payload the drone is presumably a perfect solution for long ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) missions, mapping on demand for open area as well as urban scenarios for military, peace keeping, low intensity conflict, security, law enforcement, S&R, disaster management and commercial applications.
The new dual-hybrid ThunderB VTOL is capable of taking-off vertically from a very small ground clearing or a small marine vessel by using its quad vertical electrical motors, transition to a level flight powered by its long endurance horizontal fuel-injection engine, and transitioning back to a precise, vertical landing after completing its operational mission while requiring much smaller logistical footprint than required using standard launch and recovery system.
This VTOL capability is achieved by adding a VTOL kit comprising of two booms, with four vertical electrical motors, connected under the ThunderB’s wings, similar to the way the ThunderB carries its releasable cargo capsules.
he ThunderB VTOL combines the advantages of a fixed wing UAV (long endurance, high speed, Strong wind penetration, large area coverage, ability to glide in case of emergency), with the advantages of a multi-rotor (ability to takeoff / land in confined areas, ease of transport).
With the VTOL capabilities, and its unprecedented combination of long range (150Km), long endurance (12 hours in VTOL configuration), advanced Full-HD real-time video image and its ability to operate in Com-Jam and GPS denied environments, the ThunderB VTOL can take the lead in tactical land and maritime operations, where takeoff / land areas are limited, like on a ship in mid-sea, on an oil rig or in a small forest clearance, for military, HLS, protecting exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and economical waters as well as civilian applications.
According to Ronen Nadir, CEO of BlueBird Aero systems:
“The new VTOL capability frees the ThunderB UAS from take-off and landing space limitations, paving the way for ThunderB utilization by users who require precise point take-off and landing, together with the advanced operational capabilities already delivered by our field-proven system”. He added “We are happy again to lead the way, be in the forefront of the technology, applying solutions as a result of lessons learnt from operational needs required by our operational customers. BlueBird will continue to be responsive to our customer’s needs and supply them with cutting edge solutions to meet their challenges”.
According to the recent edition of the Drone Databook at Bard College’s Center for the Study of the Drone, Bluebird UAVs are also used by India, Chile and Ethiopia.
These countries use the 9.5-kilogram SpyLite, which has a range of 50 kilometers. In contrast the ThunderB, which was sold in this contract, weighs 32 kilograms and has a range of 150 kilometers.
It can also carry a small cargo under each wing, which Bluebird says can be used to drop “essential material” with an accurate ballistic trajectory.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-11-01--Abortion Of Future. The Largest Polish Protests In Post-Soviet Era

Since October 22 , large protests against abortion ban have been taking place all around Poland .
The capital faced the largest throngs of people .
Dozens of thousands of protesters marched through the streets of Warsaw on Friday evening .
The current protests are the largest since the fall of communist regime in Poland in 1989 .
Earlier in 2016 and 2018 , the ruling Law and Justice Party had already tried to introduce the restriction on abortion , but nationwide demonstrations erupted twice .
Today the law was accepted by the Polish Constitutional Court , who de facto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the provision of legislation that allowed a woman to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus was found to have a serious and irreversible defect or an incurable disease that threatens its life .
Poland is a Catholic country where one of the most restrictive abortion laws among the world ’ s wealthier countries was adopted in 1993 .
In recent years , the ruling party has strengthened this line .
The conservative measures were provoked by the high number of abortions in the country .
Inter alia , this is due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of young girls from Ukraine and Belarus who were engaged in prostitution in the hope of easy earnings .
This provoked cultural differences and an increase in illegal abortions , as Polish doctors retained the right to refuse surgery or not prescribe pills .
Despite the fact that the current demonstration was largely peaceful , there was an important police presence due to concerns that the clashes could break out with right-wing counter-protesters , who were also widely present on the streets of Warsaw after the call of the Deputy Prime Minister and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kaczynski .
Poland is the center of gravity for students from Eastern Europe .
Plenty of young people from Ukraine and Belarus actively come there .
They represent a large ardent crowd that mostly supports the modern aggressive neoliberal agenda .
Crowds of women filled the streets of the capital , joined by thousands of men and a wide array of groups who were not satisfied with the conservative politics of Law and Justice Party .
Except the abortion ban , the protesters propelled a larger liberal agenda .
The separate target is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institution that allegedly restricts the rights of citizens .
Throughout the week , the protesters broke into the churches , vandalizing church facades and staging sit-ins .
These protests put into question the implementation of the strong Pilsudskiy-style national project .
The one that Polish elites have been striving for decades .
Today ’ s events in Poland have a lot in common with left-wing protests in Latin America .
In general , their logic is formed in the American neo-liberal think tanks , but are taken up by the masses of protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is taking place , when elite remote groups use the masses who profess very different views .
This is the way the future emerges , where society will be divided into two unequal groups .
The first is represented by a narrow circle of elites , families , who are adherent to neo-liberal ideas with a somewhat esoteric and mystical perception of the world .
The second group is much more numerous and represents the masses , a kind of new proletariat following left-wing , mostly neo-Marxist views .
MORE ON THE TOPIC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attack In French Lyon , Pogrom In Vienna

Support SouthFront
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: PayPal: southfront@internet.ru Donation alerts: https://donationalerts.com/r/southfront Gumroad: https://gumroad.com/southfront Or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
Since October 22, large protests against abortion ban have been taking place all around Poland. The capital faced the largest throngs of people. Dozens of thousands of protesters marched through the streets of Warsaw on Friday evening.
The current protests are the largest since the fall of communist regime in Poland in 1989.
Earlier in 2016 and 2018, the ruling Law and Justice Party had already tried to introduce the restriction on abortion, but nationwide demonstrations erupted twice. Today the law was accepted by the Polish Constitutional Court, who de facto prohibited abortions. The judges found unconstitutional the provision of legislation that allowed a woman to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus was found to have a serious and irreversible defect or an incurable disease that threatens its life.
Poland is a Catholic country where one of the most restrictive abortion laws among the world’s wealthier countries was adopted in 1993. In recent years, the ruling party has strengthened this line. The conservative measures were provoked by the high number of abortions in the country. Inter alia, this is due to the fact that there was a large flow of young girls from Ukraine and Belarus who were engaged in prostitution in the hope of easy earnings. This provoked cultural differences and an increase in illegal abortions, as Polish doctors retained the right to refuse surgery or not prescribe pills.
Despite the fact that the current demonstration was largely peaceful, there was an important police presence due to concerns that the clashes could break out with right-wing counter-protesters, who were also widely present on the streets of Warsaw after the call of the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the ruling party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
Poland is the center of gravity for students from Eastern Europe. Plenty of young people from Ukraine and Belarus actively come there. They represent a large ardent crowd that mostly supports the modern aggressive neoliberal agenda. Crowds of women filled the streets of the capital, joined by thousands of men and a wide array of groups who were not satisfied with the conservative politics of Law and Justice Party.
Except the abortion ban, the protesters propelled a larger liberal agenda. The separate target is the Polish Catholic Church, as an institution that allegedly restricts the rights of citizens. Throughout the week, the protesters broke into the churches,vandalizing church facades and staging sit-ins.
These protests put into question the implementation of the strong Pilsudskiy-style national project. The one that Polish elites have been striving for decades.
Today’s events in Poland have a lot in common with left-wing protests in Latin America. In general, their logic is formed in the American neo-liberal think tanks, but are taken up by the masses of protesters with left-wing views. An interesting paradox is taking place, when elite remote groups use the masses who profess very different views.
This is the way the future emerges, where society will be divided into two unequal groups. The first is represented by a narrow circle of elites, families, who are adherent to neo-liberal ideas with a somewhat esoteric and mystical perception of the world. The second group is much more numerous and represents the masses, a kind of new proletariat following left-wing, mostly neo-Marxist views.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-11-01--Elite SEAL Team Rescues American Hostage In Daring Overnight Nigeria Raid

The Pentagon announced Saturday that US special forces have been successful in a daring rescue operation of an American citizen who had been taken hostage earlier in the week by an armed group in Niger .
It was reportedly conducted by the Navy ’ s most elite SEAL Team in the early hours of Saturday , which in media reports is often referred to as SEAL Team 6 ( though goes by other names internally within JSCOC ) .
It remains unclear as to the precise identity of the group of kidnappers , however , current US official statements suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but instead likely “ bandits ” seeking ransom money .
The American had been subsequently taken by the group across the border into northern Nigeria where the special forces raid rescued him .
The dangerous border region is known for the presence of al Qaeda activity as well as the Islamic State ’ s Boko Haram .
The State Department had earlier in the week reported an American was taken captive Tuesday .
Follow-up reports identified the man as a missionary named Philip Walton .
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said the US citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and further that no US personnel were injured during the rescue .
“ U.S .
forces conducted a hostage rescue operation during the early hours of 31 October in Northern Nigeria to recover an American citizen held hostage by a group of armed men .
This American citizen is safe and is now in the care of the U.S. Department of State .
No U.S military personnel were injured during the operation , ” Hoffman said in a statement .
“ We appreciate the support of our international partners in conducting this operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect our people and our interests anywhere in the world.
” Multiple members of the armed group were killed in the raid on their compound where the American was held , according to details given by CNN : The mission , which was several hours long , was conducted by the Navy ’ s elite SEAL Team 6 who were flown to the region by Air Force special operations , a US official with knowledge of the operation told CNN .
The US forces who conducted the mission killed six of the seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US believes the captors have no known affiliation with any terror groups operating in the region , and were more likely bandits seeking money .
President Trump congratulated those involved in the mission in a Saturday morning tweet , saying , “ Big win for our very elite U.S. Special Forces today.
” And he added : “ Details to follow !
”

Support SouthFront
Originally appeared at ZeroHedge
The Pentagon announced Saturday that US special forces have been successful in a daring rescue operation of an American citizen who had been taken hostage earlier in the week by an armed group in Niger.
It was reportedly conducted by the Navy’s most elite SEAL Team in the early hours of Saturday, which in media reports is often referred to as SEAL Team 6 (though goes by other names internally within JSCOC).
It remains unclear as to the precise identity of the group of kidnappers, however, current US official statements suggest it was not an organized terrorist group but instead likely “bandits” seeking ransom money. The American had been subsequently taken by the group across the border into northern Nigeria where the special forces raid rescued him.
Big win for our very elite U.S. Special Forces today. Details to follow! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2020
The dangerous border region is known for the presence of al Qaeda activity as well as the Islamic State’s Boko Haram. The State Department had earlier in the week reported an American was taken captive Tuesday. Follow-up reports identified the man as a missionary named Philip Walton.
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said the US citizen has been recovered and is safe, and further that no US personnel were injured during the rescue.
An American missionary was abducted in the middle of the night by six gunmen armed with assault rifles in southern Niger close to the border with Nigeria on Tuesday. https://t.co/QpddTcQdvY via @CBNNews — CBN News (@CBNNews) October 28, 2020
“U.S. forces conducted a hostage rescue operation during the early hours of 31 October in Northern Nigeria to recover an American citizen held hostage by a group of armed men. This American citizen is safe and is now in the care of the U.S. Department of State. No U.S military personnel were injured during the operation,” Hoffman said in a statement.
“We appreciate the support of our international partners in conducting this operation. The United States will continue to protect our people and our interests anywhere in the world.”
Navy Seals file image via Washington Times
Multiple members of the armed group were killed in the raid on their compound where the American was held, according to details given by CNN:
The mission, which was several hours long, was conducted by the Navy’s elite SEAL Team 6 who were flown to the region by Air Force special operations, a US official with knowledge of the operation told CNN. The US forces who conducted the mission killed six of the seven captors, the official said. The US believes the captors have no known affiliation with any terror groups operating in the region, and were more likely bandits seeking money.
Nigeria’s northern border region has long been a place of heightened Boko Haram activity, but there’s also “lawless” areas where bandits operate. Map via VOA
President Trump congratulated those involved in the mission in a Saturday morning tweet, saying, “Big win for our very elite U.S. Special Forces today.” And he added: “Details to follow!”
Support SouthFront


southfront--2020-11-01--Chicken Kiev Meets Cold Turkey: Black Sea Axis Emerges?

On the face of it , an alliance between Turkey and Ukraine seems like a rather odd creation , yet one that may surprisingly durable simply because neither country has anywhere else to turn .
What practically dooms them to a partnership if not an outright alliance is their unenviable geographic and geopolitical position of occupying the strange “ no man ’ s land ” between Russia , NATO , and the Middle East .
It is , of course , largely a predicament of their own making .
Ukraine , with considerable Western backing and encouragement but nevertheless mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own oligarchy , opted out of the Russia-centered network of loose alliances , trade partnerships , and other forms of cooperation that were mutually beneficial to the two in the previous two decades .
But that defection was not rewarded by the West in a way the likes of Poroshenko , Yatsenyuk , Avakov , Parubiy , and other architects of the Maidan coup expected .
Merely being stridently anti-Russian did not prove enough to warrant a shower of US and European cash , only onerous IMF loans which moreover come with conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abide by .
EU foreign policy chief Josef Borrel lecturing Kiev that the European Union is not an “ ATM machine ” delivered that point loud and clear : Kiev is supposed to privatize whatever crown jewels its economy still has ( at this point , mainly agricultural land ) , fight corruption of its own elites and facilitate the corruption of Western elites .
Joseph Robinette Biden Junior is hardly the only Western politician with a talentless son in need of a lucrative sinecure .
There are entire Western companies eager to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the privatization of Ukraine ’ s economy will inevitably turn into .
A Kiev court ’ s recent decision to declare the country ’ s anti-corruption institutions that were painstakingly stood up with considerable aid and tutelage from Western governments , down to screening appropriately-minded individuals for the job , looks as if it were calculated to send a middle-finger gesture to Borrel in terms even dense EU bureaucratic hacks will comprehend .
Pro-EU newspapers like Kiev Post were quick to label this a “ death of democracy ” , presumably with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sponsoring yet another Maidan since last one seems not to be delivering the goods .
The expected shower of Western weaponry has not materialized , probably because NATO is afraid to give Ukraine so much aid that it will risk a full-blown war with Russia .
Erdogan ’ s Turkey , by contrast , is in process of de-facto opting out of NATO , though neither Turkey nor the alliance itself want to take the final step of severing ties completely .
NATO membership is still beneficial to Turkey .
While the procurement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NATO and US in particular , resulting in the expulsion of Turkey from the F-35 program and the cancellation of F-35 sale to the country , evidently Ankara hopes that by nominally remaining in the alliance it limits NATO and EU sanctions that would no doubt be far harsher if it were totally out of the alliance .
The hope that Turkey , possibly post-Erdogan , will yet see the error of its ways and return to the fold , prevents NATO from adopting harsher stances that would definitely push Ankara away .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the animosity between Turkey ’ s leaders and their Western European counterparts is so intense as to beggar belief .
While Germany ’ s Merkel is careful to tip-toe around the issue due to fear of another wave of refugees as well as unrest among the large Turkish diaspora in Germany , France ’ s Macron seems to have taken a personal affront to Erdogan ’ s suggestion he might need a mental evaluation and will press the issue of EU sanctions against Turkey at future Union summits .
But from Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoulder from the EU is par for the course .
Its own migration to the geopolitical gray zone of Eurasia was motivated by EU ’ s failure to admit Turkey as a member after decades of leading it by the nose and promising neighborhood in some nebulously distant future right after Hell froze over .
Like Ukraine , Turkey was not seeking EU membership because of some mythical “ shared values ” .
It , too , saw EU as an ATM machine that would shower Turkey , one of the poorest countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moreover allow Turks to freely travel and work throughout the Union .
Needless to say , neither of these prospects appealed to pretty much any European country , no matter how close or distant it was geographically .
So after decades of leading Turkey by the nose , EU politely put an end to the charade citing problems with Turkey ’ s democracy .
Thus snubbed , Erdogan opted to chart an independent course and appears to be finding a similarly snubbed oligarch clique in Kiev looking for ways the two countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status .
There are plenty of those to be had , as limited as Ukraine ’ s and Turkey ’ s resources are , compared to such patrons as EU , NATO , US .
Faced with isolation and even a potential ban on arms exports , Turkey has a strong incentive to exploit the resources of the Ukrainian defense industry and engage in some export substitution in case vital supplies are no longer available from the West .
Canada ’ s and Austria ’ s ban on exports of optronics and engines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means Ukraine ’ s ability to provide substitutes would be most welcome .
Ukraine , for its part , would not be against deploying a huge attack drone fleet of its own in the hopes of replicating Azerbaijan ’ s successful offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh on the Donbass , though there Ukraine ’ s drones would probably run afoul of Novorossiya ’ s air defenses in the same way Turkish drones were brought to heel over Idlib .
Turkey ’ s Altay main battle tank is likewise little more than an assembly of components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since Germany has already placed a ban on export of powerpacks and transmissions for the Altay , Turkey has been casting about for replacements , looking as far as China .
Whether Ukraine ’ s developments in this realm can be adopted to rescue the Altay project remain to be seen .
However , the Oplot powerpacks and transmissions can probably be adapted to Altay use , resulting in Turkey realizing its goal of a home-grown MBT .
Ultimately , the greater the contribution of Ukrainian defense industry to Turkey ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action it would bestow on Turkey and make it less dependent on other foreign sources of military hardware who can exert influence over Turkey simply by withholding future technical support .
If the United States were to follow up on the F-35 expulsion with a ban on servicing Turkish F-16s which form the mainstay of its airpower , the result would be crippling of the country ’ s air combat capabilities that drones can not compensate for and which would be sorely missed in any confrontation with another comparable power like Greece .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ indigenous fighter aircraft would benefit from Ukraine ’ s technological contributions and its own interest in indigenous aircraft designs .
For Ukraine , the relationship would be an opportunity to acquire NATO-compatible weaponry with the caveat that it would have to pay in full for every last drone , either with cash or in kind .
Turkey ’ s economic situation is not so strong as to allow largesse in the form of free military aid to anyone .
Mitigating against the long-term development of what Zelensky referred to as “ strategic partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Erdogan who seeks to dominate any and all partners and tries to see how far he can push before the partners push back .
This practice has led to the confrontations in Syria , Libya , and eastern Mediterranean .
Ukraine , in contrast to Russia , France , and even Greece , is hardly in a position to push back .
The most dangerous aspect of Turkish politics , from Ukraine ’ s perspective , is the ideology of Pan-Turkism that just might transform Ukraine ’ s Tatar community into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding yet another fissure to the already fractured political picture .
On the plus side , Erdogan does not appear interested in “ combating corruption ” in Ukraine , though that does not preclude the possibility Turkey ’ s military collaboration with Ukraine might not cost Ukraine dearly , though not to the same extent as EU-promoted privatization efforts .
MORE ON THE TOPIC : • Last Attempts To Restore Run-Down House Of Minsk Agreements • Ukraine – Land Of Opportunities : Selling Smuggled Soviet Air Defense Systems , Own Sovereignty And @

Support SouthFront
Written by J.Hawk exclusively for SouthFront
Kiev’s Unrequited Love
On the face of it, an alliance between Turkey and Ukraine seems like a rather odd creation, yet one that may surprisingly durable simply because neither country has anywhere else to turn. What practically dooms them to a partnership if not an outright alliance is their unenviable geographic and geopolitical position of occupying the strange “no man’s land” between Russia, NATO, and the Middle East. It is, of course, largely a predicament of their own making. Ukraine, with considerable Western backing and encouragement but nevertheless mostly through efforts of a faction of its own oligarchy, opted out of the Russia-centered network of loose alliances, trade partnerships, and other forms of cooperation that were mutually beneficial to the two in the previous two decades. But that defection was not rewarded by the West in a way the likes of Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, Avakov, Parubiy, and other architects of the Maidan coup expected. Merely being stridently anti-Russian did not prove enough to warrant a shower of US and European cash, only onerous IMF loans which moreover come with conditions Kiev elites are in no hurry to abide by. EU foreign policy chief Josef Borrel lecturing Kiev that the European Union is not an “ATM machine” delivered that point loud and clear: Kiev is supposed to privatize whatever crown jewels its economy still has (at this point, mainly agricultural land), fight corruption of its own elites and facilitate the corruption of Western elites. Joseph Robinette Biden Junior is hardly the only Western politician with a talentless son in need of a lucrative sinecure. There are entire Western companies eager to participate in the thinly disguised plunder that the privatization of Ukraine’s economy will inevitably turn into. A Kiev court’s recent decision to declare the country’s anti-corruption institutions that were painstakingly stood up with considerable aid and tutelage from Western governments, down to screening appropriately-minded individuals for the job, looks as if it were calculated to send a middle-finger gesture to Borrel in terms even dense EU bureaucratic hacks will comprehend. Pro-EU newspapers like Kiev Post were quick to label this a “death of democracy”, presumably with the intent of interesting EU and NATO in sponsoring yet another Maidan since last one seems not to be delivering the goods. The expected shower of Western weaponry has not materialized, probably because NATO is afraid to give Ukraine so much aid that it will risk a full-blown war with Russia.
Ankara’s Burning Hate
Erdogan’s Turkey, by contrast, is in process of de-facto opting out of NATO, though neither Turkey nor the alliance itself want to take the final step of severing ties completely. NATO membership is still beneficial to Turkey. While the procurement of Russian S-400 air defense systems angered NATO and US in particular, resulting in the expulsion of Turkey from the F-35 program and the cancellation of F-35 sale to the country, evidently Ankara hopes that by nominally remaining in the alliance it limits NATO and EU sanctions that would no doubt be far harsher if it were totally out of the alliance. The hope that Turkey, possibly post-Erdogan, will yet see the error of its ways and return to the fold, prevents NATO from adopting harsher stances that would definitely push Ankara away. Yet the drifting apart is unmistakable, and the animosity between Turkey’s leaders and their Western European counterparts is so intense as to beggar belief. While Germany’s Merkel is careful to tip-toe around the issue due to fear of another wave of refugees as well as unrest among the large Turkish diaspora in Germany, France’s Macron seems to have taken a personal affront to Erdogan’s suggestion he might need a mental evaluation and will press the issue of EU sanctions against Turkey at future Union summits.
But from Turkey’s perspective, getting a cold shoulder from the EU is par for the course. Its own migration to the geopolitical gray zone of Eurasia was motivated by EU’s failure to admit Turkey as a member after decades of leading it by the nose and promising neighborhood in some nebulously distant future right after Hell froze over. Like Ukraine, Turkey was not seeking EU membership because of some mythical “shared values”. It, too, saw EU as an ATM machine that would shower Turkey, one of the poorest countries on the continent, with development assistance and moreover allow Turks to freely travel and work throughout the Union. Needless to say, neither of these prospects appealed to pretty much any European country, no matter how close or distant it was geographically. So after decades of leading Turkey by the nose, EU politely put an end to the charade citing problems with Turkey’s democracy. Thus snubbed, Erdogan opted to chart an independent course and appears to be finding a similarly snubbed oligarch clique in Kiev looking for ways the two countries could extract mutual benefit from their isolated status.
Quid pro Quos
There are plenty of those to be had, as limited as Ukraine’s and Turkey’s resources are, compared to such patrons as EU, NATO, US. Faced with isolation and even a potential ban on arms exports, Turkey has a strong incentive to exploit the resources of the Ukrainian defense industry and engage in some export substitution in case vital supplies are no longer available from the West. Canada’s and Austria’s ban on exports of optronics and engines needed for the Bayraktar TB2 combat drones means Ukraine’s ability to provide substitutes would be most welcome. Ukraine, for its part, would not be against deploying a huge attack drone fleet of its own in the hopes of replicating Azerbaijan’s successful offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh on the Donbass, though there Ukraine’s drones would probably run afoul of Novorossiya’s air defenses in the same way Turkish drones were brought to heel over Idlib. Turkey’s Altay main battle tank is likewise little more than an assembly of components imported from other countries, particularly Germany. Since Germany has already placed a ban on export of powerpacks and transmissions for the Altay, Turkey has been casting about for replacements, looking as far as China. Whether Ukraine’s developments in this realm can be adopted to rescue the Altay project remain to be seen. However, the Oplot powerpacks and transmissions can probably be adapted to Altay use, resulting in Turkey realizing its goal of a home-grown MBT. Ultimately, the greater the contribution of Ukrainian defense industry to Turkey’s military modernization, the more freedom of action it would bestow on Turkey and make it less dependent on other foreign sources of military hardware who can exert influence over Turkey simply by withholding future technical support. If the United States were to follow up on the F-35 expulsion with a ban on servicing Turkish F-16s which form the mainstay of its airpower, the result would be crippling of the country’s air combat capabilities that drones cannot compensate for and which would be sorely missed in any confrontation with another comparable power like Greece. Turkey’s efforts to develop an indigenous fighter aircraft would benefit from Ukraine’s technological contributions and its own interest in indigenous aircraft designs. For Ukraine, the relationship would be an opportunity to acquire NATO-compatible weaponry with the caveat that it would have to pay in full for every last drone, either with cash or in kind. Turkey’s economic situation is not so strong as to allow largesse in the form of free military aid to anyone.
Match Made in Hell
Mitigating against the long-term development of what Zelensky referred to as “strategic partnership” with Turkey is the erratic behavior of Erdogan who seeks to dominate any and all partners and tries to see how far he can push before the partners push back. This practice has led to the confrontations in Syria, Libya, and eastern Mediterranean. Ukraine, in contrast to Russia, France, and even Greece, is hardly in a position to push back. The most dangerous aspect of Turkish politics, from Ukraine’s perspective, is the ideology of Pan-Turkism that just might transform Ukraine’s Tatar community into a proxy force for Turkey right inside Ukraine, adding yet another fissure to the already fractured political picture. On the plus side, Erdogan does not appear interested in “combating corruption” in Ukraine, though that does not preclude the possibility Turkey’s military collaboration with Ukraine might not cost Ukraine dearly, though not to the same extent as EU-promoted privatization efforts.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Support SouthFront