‘The air is killing us all’: What will it take to get India to tackle its perpetual pollution problem?

Hannah Ellis-Petersen

Source Link

As winter sets in across north India – usually around the time of the country’s biggest festival, Diwali – the air in Delhi becomes thick and brown with visible pollutants. To breathe in is to taste toxic fumes. The visibility is often so bad that famous monuments are reduced to smoky blurs on the horizon. It is, as one writer once put it, as if a burial shroud has cloaked the city.

For a decade, Delhi has regularly held the dishonourable title of being the world’s most polluted city, with other Indian cities close behind. A recent study calculated that the 30 million people living in and around the capital could have almost 12 years taken off their lives due to its catastrophic health impacts.

“The air is killing us all,” said Hartosh Singh, in between deep rasping coughs, as he pushed his fruit cart through Delhi’s busy Bhogal market. “The government is leaving us to die so that India can grow big. Every year more cars, more buildings, more rubbish, more factories, filling the air with filth – is that worth more than our lives?”

Recently, Delhi’s air quality index (AQI) – which indicates the level of pollutants in the air – went as high as 1,700 in some parts of the city. At the worst point of Beijing’s pollution crisis, the highest the AQI reached was 1,300. The maximum index deemed healthy by the World Health Organization is 50.

Much of the blame for the pollution is directed at farmers who, due to a change in legislation in 2009, have only a short turnaround between harvesting their rice crops and planting wheat. The quickest and cheapest way to prepare the fields is to burn them – a practice known as stubble burning. The wind blows the polluting smoke from these fires from the fields of Punjab and Haryana over into Delhi, where, due to the meteorological conditions, it often hangs over the city in a thick cloud.

Rethinking RCEP: India’s absence from such a market would disadvantage both its consumers and firms

Amit Kapoor

Source Link

The World Bank’s India Development Update, released in September, recommended that the country revisit its commitments to plurilateral trade deals, especially the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The RCEP, the negotiations of which saw India play a pivotal role right from the commencement of talks in 2013, is a free-trade agreement (FTA) between the 10 ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) countries and the advanced economies of South Korea, Japan, China, Australia, and New Zealand. The reasons cited by Indian stakeholders for not joining the partnership were trade imbalances, especially with China, and concerns about safeguarding domestic industries.

It has been empirically established that open trade flows contribute to the competitiveness of any economy with freer economies tending to be richer. Despite sustained economic growth surpassing global headwinds, the share of trade in goods and services in India’s GDP has been falling over the years. Moreover, the exports are dominated by the services sector and high-skilled manufacturing. Such sectors, though significant in absolute numbers, do not employ a large section of the population. This has become more prominent as the direct employment from exports fell from a peak of 9.5% of total domestic employment in 2012 to 6.5% in 2020. Despite accounting for 40% of formal manufacturing jobs, India’s labour-intensive industries such as textile and apparel accounted for roughly 20% of manufacturing gross value added (GVA) compared to the 70% share of the capital-intensive sector. Even in the traditional stronghold of service sector exports, India serves only 4.3% of the global demand. These numbers highlight the huge potential for the country to diversify and upgrade its export capabilities. With the unpredictable trade atmosphere and rise of protectionism in the Western world, the RCEP would have provided a fertile ground for diversification away from the traditional markets and opportunities for productivity growth and innovation.

Clash in the Gray Zone

Maj. Dustin Lawrence, U.S. Army

Source Link

Chinese and Indian troops clash in the Galwan Valley during a 15 June 2020 incident at the Line of Actual Control—the de facto border between the two countries—in the mountainous Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. (Screenshot from China State Television)

Folded in the wrinkles of the highest plateau on Earth, two battle formations met on opposite sides of a mountain tributary. Armed with clubs, spiked batons, and stones, they drew their battle lines on either side of a mountain stream. The two fought in the thin air for six hours. In the end, blood soaked the valley floor and flowed through the turbulent waters. Both sides claimed prisoners as the battle closed with the onset of the bitterly cold mountain night.1 The brutal scene, characteristic of countless skirmishes throughout the earliest pages of the historical record, was not a medieval bout or gang violence. Rather, it was a clash of two of the modern world’s largest nuclear-armed states, each with a dynamic economic reach extending the world over.

The clash erupted between Chinese and Indian troops on 15 June 2020 over a long-standing border dispute at a key junction in the Galwan Valley. While the event itself marked a significant point in the history of Sino-Indian relations, the context surrounding it sheds light on China’s approach to warfare. Despite the rudimentary weapons used that day, the violence was a component of a sophisticated global system wielded by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers were employed in harmony with China’s other instruments of national power in pursuit of strategic objectives. Even though PLA actions led to bloodshed, the corollary approach was tailored to remain below the threshold of armed conflict. It was a component of China’s strategy in the gray zone.

Many describe gray-zone activities as actions that violate international norms without venturing into the realm of armed conflict. This categorical approach is ambiguous and misses the purpose behind conducting gray-zone activities. Revisionist actors have reasons for breaking with international norms. Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, expands the definition in “Paradoxes of the Gray Zone”: “Gray zone conflict is best understood as activity that is coercive and aggressive in nature, but that is deliberately designed to remain below the threshold of conventional military conflict and open interstate war.”2 Its goal, Brands expanded, “is to reap gains, whether territorial or otherwise, that are normally associated with victory in war.”3 In other words, gray-zone operations offer alternative “ways” for China to accomplish the ends that have conventionally been associated with war.

What India Should Make of China’s Pitch at the G20

Manoj Kewalramani & Anushka Saxena

Source Link

China put up quite a show at the recently concluded G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Chinese President Xi Jinping pitched the ‘China model’ for poverty and hunger alleviation to the developing world, arguing that “if China can make it, other developing countries can too.” Further, to back China’s claims of being the most pertinent developmental partner for G20 member states, Xi also launched an ‘Initiative on International Cooperation in Open Science’ and joined the ‘Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty’.

But beyond the rhetoric about the country’s leading role in the developing world and its commitment to building a “community for a shared future for mankind,” Beijing sent signals at the Summit that spell causes for concern for those reading between the lines. More specifically, from the Indian perspective, China’s pitch at the G20 seemed competitive, highlighting structural differences between the Indian and Chinese worldviews.

Xi’s Overshadowing Appearance

In the aftermath of the G20 Summit in New Delhi in 2023, there was a lot of speculation that Xi’s absence was a sign that Beijing had downgraded the diplomatic value of the grouping. But Xi’s proactive presence at the 2024 Summit in Brazil indicates otherwise. Xi’s remarks in Rio emphasised varied aspects of the partnership between China and other Global South countries, such as in climate change, zero-tariff trade, open science, and anti-corruption. This makes it clear that the G20 as a platform remains essential to a China that seeks to leverage its position as a major power and cultivate influence within capitals around the world. This also sheds light on the simple fact that Xi’s absence from the Delhi Summit was not a product of a diplomatic downgrading of the platform, but a deliberate choice in light of bilateral ties with India.

China Has a New Playbook to Counter Trump: ‘Supply Chain Warfare’

Alexandra Stevenson and Paul Mozur

Source Link

In the world of cheap drones, Skydio was the great American hope. Its autonomous flying machines gave the U.S. defense and police agencies an alternative to Chinese manufacturers, free from the security concerns tied to dependence on Chinese supply chains.

But Skydio’s vulnerabilities came into sharp focus days before the U.S. presidential election, when the Chinese authorities imposed sanctions and severed the company’s access to essential battery supplies.

Overnight, the San Mateo, Calif.-based Skydio, the largest American maker of drones, scrambled to find new suppliers. The move slowed Skydio’s deliveries to its customers, which include the U.S. military.

“This is an attack on Skydio, but it’s also an attack on you,” Adam Bry, the chief executive, told customers.

Behind the move was a message from China’s leaders to Donald J. Trump, who would go on to win the election with a promise of new China sanctions and tariffs: Hit us and we’ll strike back harder.

From the campaign trail to his cabinet appointments, Mr. Trump has made it clear that he believes a confrontation with China over trade and technology is inevitable. In the first Trump administration, the Chinese government took mostly symbolic and equivalent measures after U.S. tariffs and trade restrictions. This time, China is poised to escalate its responses, experts say, and could aim aggressive and targeted countermeasures at American companies.

The Empire Strikes Back - Launching Multi-Pronged Hybrid War Against Resistance Axis

Source Link

It’s been an eventful few days as the Empire threw a head-fake with the Israeli conflict freeze, then launched into a major new hybrid escalation against the resistance, which included an attack on the Ruble initiated by sanctions against Gazprombank and many other Russian banks, a renewed Maidan color revolution attempt in Georgia, and now a massive Turkish-backed offensive in Syria.

Tbilisi now:

Let’s start with the Israeli conflict, for which a ceasefire has been called. Hezbollah didn’t directly negotiate the ceasefire, but it was later said to be approved by acting head Naim Qassem. Hezbollah is supposed to withdraw units north of the Litani and Israel its own troops out of south Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army has sent a peace keeping force into the southern buffer area.

🇮🇷 Israeli media: "Israel" will gradually withdraw its forces from south of the "Blue Line" in Lebanon within a period of up to 60 days.

🇱🇧 🇮🇱 Israeli Media Published the Full Ceasefire Agreement Between Israel and Lebanon, Which Includes the Following Terms:

1. Non-Aggression: Hezbollah and all other armed groups in Lebanon will refrain from initiating any offensive actions against Israel.

2. Israeli Commitment: Israel will abstain from conducting any offensive military operations against targets in Lebanon, whether on land, sea, or air.

3. Resolution 1701: Both nations affirm the significance of adhering to UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

4. Self-Defense: These commitments do not restrict either Israel or Lebanon from exercising their inherent right to self-defense.

5. Authorized Forces: Only Lebanon's official security and military forces are permitted to bear arms or operate in southern Lebanon.

6. Weapons Supervision: The sale, supply, and production of weapons and related materials for Lebanon will be overseen and regulated by the Lebanese government.

7. Dismantling Unauthorized Facilities: All unapproved facilities involved in weapon production or related activities will be dismantled.

8. Confiscation of Unauthorized Weapons: Military infrastructure and positions that do not align with the agreement will be dismantled, and all unauthorized weapons will be seized.

9. Monitoring Committee: A mutually agreed-upon committee will be established to monitor and support the enforcement of these commitments.

10. Reporting Violations: Israel and Lebanon will report any potential violations to the monitoring committee and UNIFIL.

11. Border Security Deployment: Lebanon will deploy its official security and military forces along all borders, crossing points, and within the designated southern region as outlined in the deployment plan.

12. Israeli Withdrawal: Israel will withdraw its forces south of the Blue Line in a phased process over a period of up to 60 days.

13. US-Facilitated Negotiations: The United States will promote indirect negotiations between Israel and Lebanon to establish a mutually recognized land border.

Rapid Collapse Of Syrian Forces Around Aleppo Stuns Many

Edward Yeranian

Source Link

The rapid collapse of Syrian government forces inside and around the country’s second-largest city, Aleppo, has caught many observers by surprise and is causing a domino effect on many parts of the country.

Rebel fighters, who oppose Syrian President Bashar Assad and include those from the terrorist Jabhat al Nusra group, fired weapons Saturday inside Syria’s northern “economic capital” of Aleppo after the withdrawal of government forces from the city.

Amateur video showed rebel fighters in control of Aleppo’s central Saadallah Jabari Square, in addition to Aleppo University and the city’s provincial government headquarters.

Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV reported that Syrian government forces also withdrew from Aleppo’s civilian and military airports. Abu Dhabi-based Sky News Arabia showed amateur video of rebels apparently in control of the military airport.

Britain-based Syrian analyst Rami Abdulrahman, of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told Arab media that Iranian forces and their proxy militia allies have withdrawn from many positions in and around Aleppo.

Global development impact investing

Abdulrahman said that Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces withdrew from the region after a drone attacked them and their allies, including Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite militia fighters, who pulled out alongside them.

Arab media reported that the entire region between Aleppo and the rebel-controlled province of Idlib had fallen and that large towns south of Aleppo on the main Aleppo-Damascus highway, including Saraqib and Maarat al-Numan, also were captured.

Trump 2.0 and the next Asia pivot

Igor Khrestin

Source Link

This article first appeared on Pacific Forum and is republished with permission. Read the original here.

The incoming Trump administration will face a difficult global geopolitical environment, with the ongoing wars in Europe and the conflict in the Middle East. Looming over the already tense global dynamic is the all-encompassing challenge of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The United States’ policy “pivot” to Indo-Pacific, which several modern-day American presidents have pursued but none managed to achieve, still remains relevant and consequential to preserving the global order that American power underpins.

If the imbalance is not addressed by the next commander-in-chief, the consequences may yet be even more disastrous. Thus, the new Trump Administration will have to make difficult decisions about the short-term allocation of US military resources among various theaters, while prioritizing the long-term and all-encompassing China Challenge.

What happened?

The full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the heinous October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas against Israel and the cycle of violence it engendered since have turned America’s weary eyes back to Europe and the Middle East. So much for US National Security Advisor’s Jake Sullivan’s confident affirmation a mere week before the 10/7 attacks that “the Middle East is quieter that it has been for decades.”

In the meantime, the Indo-Pacific has become a more urgent priority, not a lesser one. After the inauguration of President Lai Ching-te in Taiwan in May, the PRC launched massive live-fire drills in retaliation for the Taiwanese people’s democratic choice. The PRC launched these drills again after President Lai’s Taiwan’s National Day Address.

Beijing hasn’t limited its malign activities at intimidating Taiwan. In fact, Xi Jinping is on a warpath against the West and its allies. The PRC has significantly ramped up its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, causing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to label it as a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s aggression during its last annual summit in Washington.

War and appeasement: why a deal with Putin will backfire

Paul Dibb

Source Link

US president-elect Donald Trump’s boast that he will quickly negotiate a deal with Vladimir Putin about Russia’s war with Ukraine is likely to fail. This will be the case even though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed last month that the war ‘will end sooner’ under Trump.

The question is: in whose favour will it end?

My central concern here is that all this is occurring as the military outlook for Ukraine is grim. How long Ukraine can keep going militarily is uncertain and Kyiv may be unable to resist a demand for a Trump deal. This uncertainty is made worse by nobody knowing what Trump will actually do.

Trump grievously underrates Putin’s determination to win his war at all costs. And Putin will not allow peace talks to get in the way of eliminating Ukraine as a nation-state. He continues to assert that there is no such country as Ukraine. He also makes it brutally clear that Ukraine can never be allowed to be a member of NATO.

Last month, in reaction to the United States allowing Ukraine to use longer-range missiles (such as the 300km-range Army Tactical Missile System) to strike deeper into Russia, Putin has promised ‘an appropriate and palpable response’. But this is not the first time Putin has promised, in effect, a nuclear response.

As NATO’s former secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg has noted, if Putin wants to escalate with the use of weapons of mass destruction, he can create all the excuses he needs but ‘so far, we have called his bluff’. And the Pentagon has just announced there are no increased signs of a higher level of Russian nuclear alert.

There are, however, different opinions on this contingency. Kim Darroch, Britain’s former national security adviser, warned that allowing Britain’s long-range Storm Shadow missiles to be fired by Ukraine into Russia ‘risks a major escalation of the conflict’.

Hamas is not invincible Palestine solidarity could shatter

Reuel Marc Gerecht

Source Link

It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that Hamas will survive no matter how hard it is pummelled by Israel. Leaders will fall; new leaders will rise. Hamas’s ties to the Palestinian people will sustain it regardless of the horrors that the war has unleashed upon the Gaza Strip.

For the Biden Administration, the death of the Hamas warlord and October 7 mastermind, Yahya Sinwar, offered Israel both an emotional release and a temporary advantage that it should seize. In this view, Jerusalem must accept a ceasefire and begin working on a day-after plan which acknowledges that Hamas — an Islamist movement committed to annihilating the Jewish state — will remain a political and military presence in Gaza and the West Bank.

Such conventional thinking might, however, be wrong. Islamic history is littered with failed insurgencies and vanquished militants. It is certainly possible that with the killing of Sinwar and other senior commanders, the obliteration of most of Hamas’s combat brigades, and the vast destruction wreaked on Gaza, Israel will succeed in annihilating Hamas. Something unpleasant may rise in its place. Yet for Israel, any future enemy will surely be less menacing than Hamas, which benefitted from a militant ideology never severely tested in battle and a strip of land where Hamas’s opposition had no place to hide.

The group’s strength lies in its transcendent promise: that a holy war could drive the Jews from Palestine, sooner rather than later. Its plans for a “Big Project”, which the Israeli military captured, show that Sinwar envisioned an imminent triumph over Israel. This is the kind of delusional hope that once powered al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, which both thought that they could rapidly transform the Middle East through violence.

Second Fall of Aleppo Marks New Phase in Syrian Civil War

Paulo Aguiar

Source Link

The swift capture of Aleppo by rebel forces, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), marks a pivotal turning point in the Syrian civil war. This development not only highlights the fragility of Bashar al-Assad’s regime but also underscores how regional and broader international dynamics are reshaping the conflict. The city, which symbolized the Assad regime’s resurgence after its recapture in 2016, is once again at the center of Syria’s shifting battlefield.

The rebels’ lightning advance reflects deeper geopolitical currents. The Ukraine war has taken a toll on Russia, Assad’s most powerful ally, while Iran and Hezbollah are grappling with the fallout from Israel’s military campaigns. Meanwhile, Turkey has leveraged the situation to expand its influence in northern Syria by utilizing HTS as a proxy force. These overlapping dynamics have given rise to a volatile environment, making Aleppo’s fall a critical turning point.

HTS: From Insurgent Group to Major Player

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has evolved significantly since its origins as an offshoot of al Qaeda in Syria. After splitting from its parent organization and consolidating power in Idlib, HTS has established itself as the dominant force in Syria’s northwestern rebel-held areas. Operating under Turkish protection, the group has transformed Idlib into a de facto Islamist state, with functioning governance structures, military discipline, and strategic autonomy.

This transformation has made HTS a potent actor on Syria’s battlefield. Its leadership has sought to distance itself from the group’s jihadist roots, projecting an image of pragmatism and moderation, at least compared to other Islamist factions. This strategy has helped HTS consolidate power and attract Turkish support, even as it remains classified as a terrorist organization by the United States.

The Aleppo offensive showcases HTS’s growth into a cohesive and capable military force. The group’s fighters demonstrated effective coordination, utilizing modern tactics and weaponry, including drone warfare—a hallmark of contemporary conflicts, starting with the Ukraine war. The rapid pace of the advance, which cut through Assad’s forces in a matter of days, underscores HTS’s enhanced capacity and strategic planning.

What Syria’s Revived Civil War Means for the Region

Steven A. Cook

Source Link

Steven A. Cook is Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa studies and Director of the International Affairs Fellowship for Tenured International Relations Scholars at the Council on Foreign Relations.

How did opposition fighters gain control of Syria’s second-largest city eight years after they were routed? How significant is this?

During the height of the conflict in Syria nearly a decade ago, Aleppo was divided between government-controlled and rebel areas, but with the help of Russian airpower and the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad was able to regain control over the entire city by the end of 2016. Since about that time, conflict in Syria was static with the rebels largely confined to the Idlib governate, which is adjacent to the Aleppo governate.

Clearly, the armed opposition to Assad has taken advantage of the fact that Israel has done significant damage to Iran’s so-called axis of resistance, especially Hezbollah. A greatly weakened Hezbollah and a Russia distracted by its fight in Ukraine make it harder to defend the Assad regime. That does not mean that Hezbollah or the Russians will not help. Both are deeply invested in Syria, but they do not have the forces they had in 2015 and 2016 that were used to crush the insurgency.

After Aleppo’s fall, Assad’s grip on power seems tenuous. A major question is what is happening in Damascus. There were unconfirmed reports not long after Aleppo fell that Assad and his family were in Moscow, that there were scuffles on the streets of the capital, that different units of the Syrian army were in conflict, and most dramatically, that the presidential palace was overrun. Most of these reports are likely the result of disinformation, but what is happening within the councils of power in Damascus will be critical for how this new phase of the Syrian conflict unfolds.

A table for five: What to expect from each player at Ukraine peace talks

Rose Gottemoeller 

Source Link

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during the first Peace Summit in Switzerland on June 15. Five actors—Ukraine, Russia, NATO, the European Union, and the United States under a second Trump administration—will be central in the negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. (Credit: Official website of the President of Ukraine)

Share

Donald Trump has famously said that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. However, ending this war at such lightning speed will not be possible, even if President Trump tries to force a capitulation on the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians would not go quietly, nor should Trump seek their total capitulation because, if they did capitulate, he would come out on the losing side.

In the zero-sum tradition of Russian diplomacy, President Vladimir Putin has been keen to mete out a devastating defeat to Ukraine and with it a defeat of its NATO partners and the United States in particular. Putin speaks of his goal as avoiding NATO’s strategic defeat of Russia—an existential threat that he has embraced to the hilt, even though NATO has denied any intention of attacking Russia itself.

Trump may seek a deal, but he most certainly won’t want a deal that leaves him appearing to be a loser. Putin, in turn, wants a continuing partner in Trump because he has several goals he needs to accomplish—such as getting out from under the crushing sanctions that the United States and its allies have imposed on Russia. Putin cannot afford to force Trump into a losing position, which means he cannot crush the Ukrainians. They too must come out of the war achieving a good measure of their objectives.

Implications of the Oreshnik for NATO's Missile Defense Posture in Europe Is NATO Toast?

Fabian Hoffmann

Source Link

What do we know about the Oreshnik so far?

Here’s a quick recap along with additional information released since last week.

Oreshnik is a new missile system based on the Russian RS-26 Rubezh (SS-X-31), which was developed between 2008 and 2018 but mothballed before reaching full operational capability.

According to Ukrainian assessments, development of the RS-26 continued under the new designation “Kedr,” reportedly describing the same capability as the Oreshnik. Like the RS-26, the Oreshnik is almost certainly a solid-propellant, two-stage missile, with stages identical to the first two used in the RS-24 YaRS ICBM.

While Putin described the missile as a medium-range capability, it likely falls within the intermediate-range spectrum (3,000–5,500 km) and could potentially engage targets at the lower bounds of the intercontinental-range spectrum (>5,500 km), depending on the trajectory flown. Perhaps the most notable feature demonstrated by the Oreshnik was its non-nuclear MIRV capability, enabling it to carry multiple warheads that can be independently targeted.

Although MIRV technology is common in nuclear missiles, the Oreshnik is the first and currently the only operational ballistic missile confirmed to be equipped with a non-nuclear MIRV payload (there are claims that some Iranian MRBMs may be equipped with MIRV technology). That said, the missile's exact payload configuration remains somewhat unclear. Reports suggest the Oreshnik carries six re-entry vehicles, each equipped with a non-nuclear warhead. According to HUR reports, each of these warheads contains six inert submunitions, though it is unclear what these submunitions are (dummies, weight simulators, penetration aids, something else?). Conventional explosives are very likely not involved.

The US Just Made It Way Harder for China to Build Its Own AI Chips

Louise Matsakis

Source Link

The Biden administration announced a sweeping set of export controls on chip-manufacturing equipment, memory, and software that will make it more difficult for companies like Huawei and ByteDance to develop cutting-edge AI.

The US Department of Commerce introduced a sweeping package of export controls on Monday designed to weaken China’s domestic semiconductor ecosystem and undermine the country’s ability to manufacture advanced chips locally. The new regulations prevent China from accessing 24 types of chip-manufacturing equipment and three software programs, and place restrictions on the sale to China of high-bandwidth memory, or HBM, an advanced kind of 3D-stacked computer memory component that is often used in customized AI chips.

FPV interceptions of Russian UAVs: A new era of aerial combat.

Artem

Source Link

In a first for modern warfare, the Ukrainian Defense Forces have been using FPV drones to intercept Russian surveillance drones and other UAVs. In recent months, a variety of published sources have included video evidence showing the considerable success Ukraine has had in doing so. This article examines aggregated open-source data on interceptions of Russian “fixed-wing” drones.

As a disclaimer, all materials used in this article have been meticulously collected from open sources, solely for the purpose of researching UAV interceptions. The offline map, table, video, and photographic materials are attached to this article with their own separate link. For those who wish to conduct further monitoring and fact-checking of this topic, please reference either source links or specific points in this article’s materials as a source.

The process of countering enemy UAVs of the “fixed-wing” type using FPV interceptors is not as challenging to understand as one might initially perceive. If one were to omit the stages which precede any interception, such as detection, target designation etc, one arrives at the event shown within video and single image souces: of an FPV interceptor approaching the enemy drone and disabling it by either the detonation of the drone’s warhead or by knocking the enemy drone out of the sky by ramming it.

The vast majority of interceptions occur through detonation of the warhead. In this case, post-interception assessments prove challenging since, along with its target, the FPV interceptor is also destroyed in any successful engagement. Therefore, we will further assume that each FPV interceptor approach to the enemy drone results in a successful engagement.

At the date of this research article’s publication, 870 UAV interceptions had been processed, with an expected share of unfiltered duplicates accounting for no more than 2%. It should be noted that this study does not include examples and video footage of Russian FPV interceptions; we note that the presently recorded ratio is 870:8 in this regard.

The individual parameters of this research’s recorded statistical data are herein grouped into two categories: ‘reliable’ and ‘requiring additional assumptions’.

The Kash Patel Principle

Tom Nichols

Source Link

Donald Trump has been releasing names of his nominees for the Cabinet and other senior posts in waves. He began with some relatively conventional choices, and then unloaded one bombshell after another, perhaps in an attempt to paralyze opposition in the Senate with a flood of bad nominees or to overwhelm the public’s already limited political attention span. He’s chosen a Fox News host with a sordid personal history to lead the Pentagon, an apologist for dictators in Russia and Syria to be the director of national intelligence, and an anti-vax, anti-science activist to be the nation’s top health official.

Enjoy a year of unlimited access to The Atlantic—including every story on our site and app, subscriber newsletters, and more.Become a Subscriber

Trump has now added yet another dangerous nomination to this list. In a Saturday-night post on his social-media site, Truth Social, he announced that he is nominating Kash Patel, a former federal prosecutor, to serve as the director of the FBI. A Patel nomination to some position in the law-enforcement or intelligence spheres has always been lurking out there as a possibility, and Trump may have held off announcing it until he felt he had protracted enough outrage (and exhaustion) with his other nominations.

Patel’s nomination is shocking in many ways, not least because the FBI already has a director, Christopher Wray, whom Trump appointed to a 10-year term only seven years ago and whom he would have to fire almost immediately to make way for Patel. Worse, Patel is a conspiracy theorist even by the standards of MAGA world. Like other senior Trump nominees, his primary qualification for the job appears to be his willingness to do Trump’s bidding without hesitation. Patel will likely face a difficult path to confirmation in the Senate.

For Trump, naming Patel to the post serves several purposes. First, Trump is taking his razor-thin election win as a mandate to rule as he pleases, and Patel is the perfect nominee to prove that he doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. Even knowing what they know, Americans chose to return Trump to office, and he has taken their decision as a license to do whatever he wants—including giving immense power to someone like Patel.

Russia Increases Ties With Iran’s Axis Of Resistance – Analysis

Dr. Emil Avdaliani

Source Link

On November 19, Israel announced it found a large cache of Russian arms at the hand of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Reports show that many of the weapons were initially owned by the Syrian military, to which Russia has supplied weapons for years (Times of Israel, November 19). This indicates growing cooperation between Russia and the militias across the Middle East (see EDM, September 18).

While Russia has been opportunistic in the Middle East, it does not have a blueprint for an overarching peace in the region, nor does it genuinely strive to achieve it by portraying itself as a substitute for the United States (see EDM, October 7). Russia seeks a measured increase in its geopolitical influence via bilateral deals with key Middle East actors. These are enhanced through close military, security, and economic ties and are especially valuable in the age of Russia-West rivalry following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia turned to the Middle East and wider Asia to withstand the pressure of sanctions by seeking alternative trade routes and sources of foreign investments.

One such enhanced relationship is Russia’s ties with Iran in the international consequences of the war in Ukraine (see EDM, November 4). Yet what largely fell out of focus is how this alignment allowed Moscow to deepen relations with Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance,” a network of militias across the Middle East that the Islamic Republic operates. From Houthis to Hezbollah to Hamas, Russia has increased its diplomacy and, in some cases, military cooperation over the past couple of years (see EDM, August 8).

Russia has been actively engaged in expanding security and military ties with the Houthis, including providing weapons to the organization. Media reports indicate that Russian intelligence officers were spotted in the Houthis-held territory, and Moscow has even considered sending significant military support to the Iran-backed militia (Iran International, September 25). Moreover, political contacts became more common, with Houthi and Russian officials holding regular meetings (TASS, July 2).

The Heartland Theory: More Relevant Than Ever? – Analysis

Claudio Grass

Source Link

Sir Halford Mackinder’s famous Heartland Theory was first formulated in the early 20th century, but it holds renewed relevance and importance today, especially when analyzed though a critical lens of the current geopolitical system, one that emphasizes individual freedom, limited government intervention, and skepticism of centralized power.

Mackinder’s theory posits that control over the “Heartland” — roughly the region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia — grants substantial power over global politics and commerce due to its geographic centrality, strategic importance and resource abundance. This seemingly simple, but potent, core idea, highlights both the dangers and opportunities posed by state power struggles and emphasizes the need for decentralized and voluntary approaches to international relations and global geopolitical power balances.

Mackinder argued that whoever controls the Heartland, also referred to as “the pivot area” in his 1904 analysis “The Geographical Pivot of History”, could eventually control the world’s very trajectory. Historically, command over this central position has allowed a nation or an alliance of nations to exert immense influence over global affairs. Clearly, for liberty-loving individuals and independent thinkers, this level of dominance raises serious concerns due to the concentrated power it affords a central authority, potentially undermining individual freedoms and self-determination.

It also raises very legitimate fears over the potential for coercive policies that threaten individual autonomy both domestically and internationally. What’s more, the fierce competition over the Heartland not only encourages interventionist policies, but also indirect hostile actions or even outright aggression, usually ending up in “unholy” alliances and in devastating and costly wars.

Who is Jasper Jeffers, the US army general co-monitoring the Lebanon ceasefire?

Jasper Jeffers

Source Link

The US military has appointed Major General Jasper Jeffers to oversee the implementation of the Washington-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon, which took effect in the early hours of Wednesday, CENTCOM announced.

The head of the Special Operations Command Central will carry out his mission alongside US Special envoy Amos Hochstein, who helped broker the truce between Israel and Hezbollah over the past few weeks.

Jeffers arrived in in the Lebanese capital earlier this week as part of his mission to monitor the ceasefire’s implementation, CENTCOM said.

He met with Lebanese armed forces commander Joseph Aoun on Friday, where they discussed the coordination mechanism between the involved parties in the south, the Lebanese army said, as cited by the The New Arab’s Arabic-language site, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed.

The cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah will be chaired by the United States and include the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), the Israeli army, the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL), as well as France.

The New Arab takes a look at the US army's appointee for monitoring the ceasefire.

Who is Jasper Jeffers?

Jasper Jeffers’ military career began in 1996, after he graduated from Virginia Tech, where he was assigned as an infantry officer. His first assignment was as a rifle platoon commander and operations officer in the 4-31st Infantry Regiment in Fort Drum, New York State.

Jeffers then went on to serve as a platoon leader and executive officer with the 1st Battalion, 75th Infantry Regiment, at Fort Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia.

He then climbed the US military ranks by serving as a company commander and air operations officer with 1-5 Infantry Regiment, 1/25 Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Fort Lewis, Washington.

Stuxnet: The Paradigm-Shifting Cyberattack, Implications and way forward

Ammara Nayab

Source Link

In the modern age where interconnection defines every aspect of life, the concept of warfare has also expanded beyond traditional battlefields. With the introduction of cyber warfare, a new era of conflict has started where states launch attacks that destroy infrastructure and economies. The discovery of Stuxnet in 2010 was a turning point in the history of cyber warfare. The sophisticated computer worm, specially designed to delay Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, was unprecedentedly intricate and extensive. It was written in multiple programming languages, including C and C++. Its extremely advanced design allowed it to carry out a number of tasks, including self-replication and dissemination via local networks and USB devices. It specifically targeted siemens PLCs that were controlling the centrifuges used for uranium enrichment. After identifying PLCs, it altered their functioning. It used multiple zero-day exploits to infect window PLCs in the Natanz facility, revealing an extraordinary amount of drawbacks. It corrupted Iran’s nuclear program in a subtle way while avoiding detection for months. Stuxnet is generally believed to have been created as a result of a joint effort by the United States and Israel.

Stuxnet was more than just another piece of malware; it represented a paradigm alteration in how states could utilize cyber capabilities for strategic gain. Beyond its immediate target, its implications are far-reaching, modernizing cyber warfare and raising critical questions about ethics, national security, and global governance. Stuxnet was a masterwork in technology in contrast to earlier cyberattacks. Stuxnet was revolutionary because of its sophistication and precision, proving that cyber weapons could cause genuine harm in the physical world by moving beyond the digital domain. This established a new standard for cyberattacks by demonstrating the potential for state-sponsored operations to achieve premeditated goals without using traditional military means.

Can Artificial Rain, Drones, or Satellites Clean Toxic Air?

Source Link

As winter sets in, a dense layer of toxic smog has descended over Delhi, driving the city’s air quality down to its worst level in eight years. Air pollution levels have deteriorated rapidly since the end of October, remaining hazardous every day since November 12. On November 18, the Air Quality Index (AQI) hit 494, plunging the city’s pollution levels into the “severe plus” category, the worst classification possible. Anything up to 50 is deemed “good”; beyond 200 is “poor.”

This smog, composed mainly of fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, has engulfed what was already the most polluted city in the world, leaving residents struggling with burning eyes, itchy throats, persistent coughs, fever, and breathing difficulties. PM2.5 are fine particles that penetrate the lungs and bloodstream, increasing the risk of respiratory diseases and cardiovascular problems. Exposure in children has been linked to impaired lung development, reduced brain volume, and ADHD.

On November 18, the pollution-monitoring company IQAir recorded Delhi’s PM2.5 levels at more than 60 times the safety limit recommended by the World Health Organization. It’s a bad spike, but air quality shouldn’t be seen as just a winter problem, says Avinash Chanchal, Greenpeace South Asia’s deputy program director. Year round “we are observing a very high level of pollutants,” he says. “Two times, three times, four times, five times higher than the national ambient air quality standards.”

Stagnant weather conditions across the whole of northern India and Pakistan are largely responsible for conditions being so bad right now, trapping pollutants over the region. But pollution itself is also surging, thanks to farmers clearing their fields with fire at the end of the growing season, more fires being lit for heating and cooking, and smoke from fireworks, which have combined with Delhi’s year-round mix of industrial emissions and vehicle pollution.

Governed & Ungoverned Spaces: What They Have Taught Us About Counterterror Strategy

Monte Erfourth

Source Link

The desire for self-determination has fueled political uprisings, secessionist movements, and conflicts across the globe. Various groups, often marginalized and dispossessed, have sought independence or greater autonomy through a range of means, including violent insurgencies, peaceful protest, and diplomatic negotiation. Among these are the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Basque separatists in Spain, the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, the Palestinians, and the Hong Kong independence movement. Although their contexts differ widely, their struggles share a common thread: an enduring pursuit of self-rule against what they perceive as oppressive governance. This article examines why various groups have pursued independence, the strategies they have employed, the successes of these efforts, and the lessons that can be learned in both independence movements and counterterrorism. Additionally, insights from the relationship between governance and independence suggest what is possible and what is not achievable in ungoverned spaces.

Historical Context and Motivation for Independence

For the IRA, Basque separatists, Kurds, Palestinians, and Hong Kong activists, a sense of historical grievance, perceived oppression, cultural identity, and marginalization under centralized authorities have driven their pursuit of independence or autonomy.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) sought to end British control in Northern Ireland and establish a united Ireland. This cause was driven by centuries of British colonial control, discrimination against the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland, and the desire to unify Ireland. The partition of Ireland in 1921 left many Irish nationalists dissatisfied, leading to a violent struggle that escalated into the Troubles of 1969-1998. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ultimately resulted in significant political autonomy for Northern Ireland but did not accomplish full reunification, leaving some factions of the IRA unsatisfied.

"World War 3 is already here": No mushroom clouds, but here's when it really began

Source Link

The global political and military landscape is shifting, with some experts claiming that World War III has already begun. Unlike the traditional notions of global warfare, there are no large-scale battles or mushroom clouds, yet the evidence suggests that the world is already embroiled in a form of warfare that is subtle, pervasive, and evolving across multiple domains.

World War III, as described by national security expert Mark Toth and former US intelligence officer Colonel Jonathan Sweet, is not like the global wars of the 20th century. “This third global conflagration doesn't look or feel like what Hollywood envisioned. No mushroom clouds or apocalyptic wastelands. Rather, it is war by a thousand cuts, conducted across multi-regional and multi-domain battlefields,” they explained in an interview with the Daily Mail. The early stages of the conflict, they argue, were set in motion with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The Hybrid Warfare of Today: A New Form of ConflictThe concept of hybrid warfare lies at the heart of the assertion that World War III is already underway. In today’s conflicts, battles are fought not just with physical weapons, but with a mix of cyberattacks, disinformation, and economic manipulation.

Toth and Sweet particularly point to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and beyond as an example of hybrid warfare, highlighting Moscow’s use of paramilitary groups like the Wagner Group to destabilise regions across Africa, as well as its growing influence in space and cyberspace. Russia's efforts to use disinformation, including troll farms and AI-generated deepfakes, spread across social media to manipulate public opinion and sow discord in Western democracies, further complicating the landscape of this new war.

The Army’s Discourse Problem

Kareem P. Montague 

Source Link

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Picture it—the commander and staff are assembled in the conference room. At some point during the meeting, the commander expresses an idea to the group of twenty-odd staff and noncommissioned officers. It’s not a particularly good idea, but it isn’t exactly terrible either. Think of all the times you’ve been in this exact situation. What happens next? In my experience two things normally happen. First, there is an awkwardly long silence before anyone says anything. Then, when someone finally speaks up, the comments often begin with something to the effect of “Sir, you’re exactly right” or “Ma’am, that’s a great idea,” which is then followed by further glowingly supportive remarks. Be honest: How often have you seen this before?

The level of the command doesn’t matter—it could be battalion, brigade, division—nor does the relative experience of the rest of the participants. There is something about the culture of the US Army that elicits this sort of interaction too often. I think back to when I was a young officer, and this exact scenario played out during a discussion of the relatively mundane subject of the party favor at the upcoming unit ball. We decided on a beer glass as a table gift for everyone who attended. The commander assessed that at least two thirds of the unit would attend and at least half of them would bring dates. Both of those assumptions were shockingly inaccurate, and if there were people in the meeting who thought they might be, they didn’t voice that opinion. The unit ended up buying twice as many glasses as we needed, offering the leftovers for sale at the staff duty desk for the next three years. I think four of them were sold before the boxes were moved into a storage closet. They might still be there.

The Deference Pause and Well-Meaning Sycophancy

Let’s address both initial responses. But to do that, we must talk about the elephant in the room. The Army is a rigidly hierarchical organization. The reason is simple: a foundational truth about combat is that there will come a time when a superior gives an order to a subordinate that will put that individual in harm’s way. Self-preservation is fundamental to human nature, so countering this potent survival urge and replacing it with compliance without question requires conditioning and training. This starts at initial entry training for all soldiers and continues in their units. We are taught to recognize the importance of rank and the necessities of obedience.