New Threat Realities and Deterrence Requirements
From Keith B. Payne, NIPP: “For most of the previous twenty-five years, US policy increasingly has been captured by three related refrains regarding the post-Cold War era: 1) nuclear terrorism was the remaining greatest threat; 2) nonproliferation was the highest priority and key to countering this greatest threat; and, 3) in turn, US nuclear reductions and limitations were the key to nonproliferation.” ​

Nuclear Balancing and the Curse of the Heavy ICBM
From Rod Lyon, The Strategist (ASPI): “Stable nuclear balances are those in which neither side feels pressure to fire first. And that typically goes to the shape of an arsenal, not simply its size. Take the case of an arms control agreement between two superpowers to limit their countable nuclear warheads to 1,000. (I use the adjective ‘countable’, because warhead numbers typically depend upon agreed counting rules for specific delivery vehicles.) Country A chooses to deploy 300 single-warhead ICBMs in fixed silos, 600 warheads on multiple-warhead (MIRVed) missiles at sea, and 100 warheads on its long-range strategic bombers. Country B chooses to build 100 ICBMs, each with 10 warheads, in fixed silos.”   ​

The 5 Best Aircraft Carriers in Naval History
From James Holmes, The National Interest: “Anyone who's tried to compare one piece of kit—ships, aircraft, weaponry of various types—to another will testify to how hard this chore is. Ranking aircraft carriers is no exception. Consulting the pages of Jane's Fighting Ships or Combat Fleets of the World sheds some light on the problem. For instance, a flattop whose innards house a nuclear propulsion plant boasts virtually unlimited cruising range, whereas a carrier powered by fossil fuels is tethered to its fuel source. As Alfred Thayer Mahan puts it, a conventional warship bereft of bases or a coterie of logistics ships is a "land bird" unable to fly far from home.” ​

Reawakening of the Threat of Identity Conflicts at the End of Globalization. Michael Vlahos @jhuworldcrisis.

“…Serbian and Kosovar leaders agreed to continue talks after a tense meeting in Brussels on Tuesday (24 January), which only succeeded in further antagonising the two sides. EurActiv Serbia reports.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said normalising relations between Serbia and Kosvo was vital for the two countries, but her guests seemed unwilling to make any concessions.
On the contrary. Tensions escalated before the meeting when Serbia attempted to send a passenger train emblazoned with the slogan “Kosovo is Serbia” in several languages to the Serb enclave of northern Kosovo.

Pristina regarded it as a provocation and sent its ROSU special police forces to the north, forcing Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić to stop the controversial train from entering Kosovo.
Vučić’s decision halted the escalation, but tensions remained. Belgrade accused Pristina of jeopardising the safety of Kosovo Serbs by sending its security forces to the north, while Pristina stuck to its accusations that sending the controversial train had been a provocation to which the Kosovo authorities had to respond.

Serbian President Tomislav Nikolić added fuel to the fire by saying Serbia would deploy its army in Kosovo if the local Serbs were endangered, triggering heated reactions in Kosovo.
​
This tense background explains why the meeting in Brussels, attended by Presidents Nikolić and Hashim Thaçi, and Prime Ministers Vučić and Isa Mustafa, was considered so important….”
http://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/tensions-flare-at-serbia-kosovo-meeting/

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) writes: When it comes to developing and implementing U.S. policy towards Africa, I urge you to draw on the decades of expertise from individuals of both parties, including members of the African diaspora community and private sector leaders whose knowledge and experience transcends party affiliation. Mr. President, I know I speak for both Republican and Democratic colleagues in Congress when I say that we look forward to working with you to shape our policy towards Africa. – The American Interest

How Far China's Nuclear Capabilities Stretch
From Stratfor: “China has had a nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States since the early 1980s, the Dongfeng-5, but it has issues that have recently limited its effectiveness as a deterrent. Its liquid fuel propellant means that it must undergo a lengthy fueling process before it can be launched, and its lack of mobility renders its silos vulnerable to strikes by increasingly accurate munitions. Those threats to its survivability reduce its value as a minimum credible deterrence. China needed to upgrade to a more survivable missile inventory given its historically smaller nuclear arsenal and no-first-use doctrine." ​

Stanley McChrystal on War in Europe, Privacy, and Global Threats 
From Michael Miklaucic, PRISM Magazine: “What do you see as the starkest, most challenging characteristics of the emerging global threat environment? McChrystal: There are two characteristics of concern. First is the reemergence of great power nationalism; the rise of China, the reemergence of Russia, both with enough power and self-confidence to go back to traditional nationalist objectives. Russia is trying to move back into areas in Ukraine and perhaps even into the Baltic States, to try to reassert itself. That is a natural ebb and flow of power going back hundreds of years. I don’t think we saw the end of history in 1989; rather we are back on the track of history. Russia and China are major factors, and they are enough that we might not be in a post-modern period of history. A European war is not unthinkable. People who want to believe a war in Europe is not possible might be in for a surprise. We have to acknowledge great power politics; we can’t pretend they are gone . . .” 

America Is a Maritime Nation
From Robert Kaplan, RealClearWorld: “The United States, bordered by two oceans, is a maritime nation. Not only is its Navy the largest in the world by far, but its coast guard would qualify as the 12th largest fleet in the world. The U.S. Navy is America's foremost strategic instrument -- much more so than its nuclear arsenal, which in all probability can never be used. The U.S. Navy is on the high seas around the world in peacetime as well as in wartime, guarding the sea lines of communication and the main maritime choke points. This, in turn, allows for a free global trading regime and guarantees access to hydrocarbons for America's allies. This Navy, by the way, also allows for an inland strike capacity. To wit, America bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo from warships in the Indian Ocean and the Adriatic Sea.”  ​

The 5 Most Dangerous (and Destructive) Navies of All Time
From Kyle Mizokami, The National Interest: “The most powerful navy of each period of human history is always relative. The Greek Navy recounted by Herodotus is nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. Navy of Samuel Eliot Morison. Both made a sizable contribution to the security of their respective countries. Each was the most powerful navy of its time, and shaped the world around it to make the world we know today.” ​

STRATEGIKA:  STRATEGIC REALLIGNMENT, REQUIRMENTS & FOREIGN POLICY 

Alexander Cooley writes: For some in the West, the illiberal agenda has been folded into the broader framework of anti-globalism, signaling the intent to disengage from multilateral commitments abroad and pursue economic and political nationalism at home. But for the United States, weakening the liberal consensus on the importance of democratic norms in the interest of pragmatic dealmaking also risks eroding the extensive global network of alliances, institutions, and cooperative agreements that have buttressed U.S. global power since World War II. – Real Clear World

What Geopolitical Adage Explains Trump's Global Views

Trump & Cause of Freedom

Trump & Special Op's
Joshua Kurlantzick writes: Turning a global conflict over to secret warriors poses the same risks today. The fighting could foster abuses with almost no oversight, kill civilians and thus alienate local populations. And secret forces simply may not have the ability to manage a widening conflict. If the new administration plans to really expand the field of fight, it will ultimately have to make more use of the conventional U.S. military. – Washington Post