HOW TO ACHIEVE LEADERSHIP, WAR ON THE ROCKS EXAMINES YEAR ONE AFTER NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY & HOOVER EXAMINES HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WAR
Achieving Effective Leadership
By Donald C. Bolduc, Small Wars Journal: "Difference-Makers possess a high emotional quotient and adaptability quotient and are good at reading people. There is a point in a leader’s career that a high emotional quotient and adaptability quotient becomes more important than your intelligence quotient. This is important because it requires a leader not to be the smartest person in room, but rather the most intuitive, understanding, and supportive person in the room."
The History Of Nuclear Warfare And The Future Of Nuclear Energy
via The Hoover CentennialThe first atomic strike in 1945 changed the world forever.
THAT '70'S SHOW: HOW THE ARMY WANTS TO FORGET IRAQ WAR, THE RETURN TO 1973 POST VIETNAM & STEVEN KOTKIN ON WORLD ORDER TODAY
The US Army Is Trying to Bury the Lessons of the Iraq War
// Frank Sobchak By scuttling plans to help its leaders understand what went wrong, the service is turning a blind eye to insights of enduring relevance.
Searching For World Order: America, China, Russia, Iran
with Stephen Kotkin via Foreign Policy Research InstituteThe Cold War of the 20th century seems clear cut, in retrospect: a galvanizing competition to rally free and market-oriented societies against a godless communist empire. But the 21st century has brought about new, more complicated conflicts. Historian Stephen Kotkin examines U.S. relations with China, Russia, and Iran from the 1970s to the present. Professor Kotkin won the seventeenth annual Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award for Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 (Random House), the second volume of a definitive biography of Joseph Stalin. The first volume, Paradoxes of Power, was nominated for a Pulitzer.
Conserving International Order
by Peter Berkowitz via Real Clear PoliticsIn the United States, conservatism and liberalism — often to the consternation of conservatives and liberals — are ineluctably intertwined. This turns out to be true of foreign affairs as well as of domestic affairs. Attention to this entwinement helps bring into focus the key question concerning the contemporary dispute about the post-World War II international order and the United States’ role in maintaining it: What policies best advance America’s interest in conserving freedom?
HOW TRUMP SEES US 'HYPERSONIC' IMPERATIVES FOR THE LONG WAR, GREAT POWER COMPETITION & WHEN YOUR "CHANGE" NEEDS A NEW STRATEGY
Hypersonics Won’t Repeat Mistakes Of F-35
Pentagon’s New Ballistic Missile Interceptor Doesn’t Work, Suffers Years-Long Delay
Tackling hypersonic threats: Offense or missile defense?
(Breaking Defense) China. Hypersonic weapons. Say those three words, add a little artificial intelligence, and you can almost sum up why the Pentagon sees the Peoples Republic of China as a rising military threat.
Army reboots cruise missile defense: IFPC & Iron Dome
(Breaking Defense) The Army is effectively rebooting a key air and missile defense program, IFPC, to refocus it on higher-end threats like cruise missiles.
US to start fabricating parts for ground-launched cruise missile systems
(Reuters) The United States will begin “fabrication activities” on parts for ground-launched cruise missile systems, the Pentagon said on Monday, after Washington announced it plans to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
US ‘gets its ass handed to it’ in wargames: Here’s a $24 billion fix
(Breaking Defense) The US keeps losing, hard, in simulated wars with Russia and China. Bases burn. Warships sink. But we could fix the problem for about $24 billion a year, one well-connected expert said, less than four percent of the Pentagon budget.
The End of Great Power Peace
By Hal Brands & Charles Edel, The National Interest: “As recently as 2010, Barack Obama could observe a strategic landscape where the “major powers are at peace.” Yet if great-power war has not returned, the era of deep great-power peace is over."
American National Security and the Imperative Primacy of "Mind"
By Prof. Louis René Beres, March 7, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: While President Trump intends to bolster US power through enhanced weapons systems and a rededication to belligerent nationalist foreign policies, authentic national security will require new emphases on intellect, or “mind.” This means focusing on new ways of thinking about world politics, especially much-needed escape plans from lethal cycles of competitive geopolitics. Washington must slow its still-growing inclination toward renewed arms racing and to other kinds of military escalation and shift its policy emphases to the greater utilities of intellect.
Continue to full article ->
Horns of a Dilemma: Why Ike Matters – America and the World in the 1950s by William Hitchcock
Among the knowns:
Navy and Air Force force structure: The chief of naval operations created waves when he said last month that its 355-ship goal would be reevaluated (how many manned ships? How many unmanned?). The reshaping of that goal will change how the Navy spends vast amounts of its money. Also, we might finally get more details about the Air Force's goal to create 386 operational squadrons.
Tackling Hypersonic Threats: Offense Or Missile Defense?
Offensive missiles are much cheaper than missile defenses. So is the best defense a good offense?
H.R. McMASTER ON FUTURE WARS, WHAT A PACIFIC CENTURY MEANS, THE FUTURE OF US - CHINA RELATIONS & WHY CLAUSEWITZ STILL MATTERS
Tactical Art in Future Wars by Robert H. Scales
Technology, Uncertainty, and Future War
By Chris Tuck, Defence-In-Depth: “It would seem reasonable to assert that the role played by technology on future battlefields will depend to an important extent on the sorts of wars in which that technology will be used."
Introducing 'The Pacific Century': China, North Korea, and the US
John Yoo and Michael R. Auslin | "The Pacific Century"
The future of China-US military relations
Oriana Skylar Mastro | ChinaFile
INDOPACOM: The ‘Quad’ might be shelved
(The Associated Press) A U.S. military commander suggested Thursday that a loose security grouping of his country, Japan, Australia and India, also known as the quad, may be shelved for now.
Introducing The Pacific Century: China, North Korea, And The US
with Michael R. Auslin, John Yoo via The Pacific CenturyThe voyage begins when you push away from the shore.
Future War: Not Back to the Future by Mike Dana
That Clausewitz-Is-Irrelevant 'Hot Take' Is Just Wrong
By Steve Leonard, Modern War Institute: “Every time I read another armchair strategist comment on the contemporary irrelevance of Clausewitz, I'm left shaking my head. In many ways, reading On War is like reading the Bible: literal interpretations of the text often lead readers to misinterpretations of the deeper, often more thought-provoking ideas underpinning the writing."
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE IDEA OF 'FUSION'; US MUST FIELD INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR MISSILES NOW & HOW TO AVOID POLITICIZING INTELLIGENCE WHILE AIR FORCE ADDRESS MODERNIZATION
Fusion Doctrine: One Year On
By William McKeran, RUSI Journal: “The end of this month marks the first anniversary of the UK’s Fusion Doctrine. Launched as a central component of last year’s National Security and Capability Review (NSCR), Fusion Doctrine is Mark Sedwill’s National Security Council (NSC) initiative to fuse capabilities, across ‘economic, security, social and the rest’, to deliver strategy-led design of policy and planning."
The U.S. Should Immediately Develop Intermediate-Range Missiles
Bradley Bowman | CMPP Senior DirectorAndrew Gabel | Research Analyst
Russian Statements on New Cruise Missile Indicate First Strike Intentions
By Reuben F. Johnson, The Washington Free Beacon: "Putin highlighted the NPO Mashinostroyeniya 3M22 Tsirkon missile. It has a range of about 620 miles, which means it would have to be launched from a ship or submarine very close to the U.S. east or west coast if it were to be fired at targets in the continental United States, according to Russian weapons design specialists who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon."
Avoiding the Politicization of Intelligence and Policy-Making
By Col (Res.) Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen, March 4, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: If policy-making is to be honest and clean, intelligence must not be misused for political purposes. Intelligence input should be professional, independent, and courageous. Several cases in the US illustrate the complex interaction between leadership and the intelligence community and the temptation to manipulate intelligence to gain leverage in internal political disputes.
Continue to full article ->
The Surface Fleet, ASW and Defeating Hyper-Sonic Cruise Missiles:
The Case of the Zumwalt Class
By Ed Timperlake, SLDinfo: "A new player which could play a key role in a kill web approach could be the new Zumwalt class destroyer. There are three ships in this class, but rethinking the key role it could play in a kill web approach to the HSCM and other threats might lead to a rethink."
Growing Missile Threats Demand Increased Investments in U.S. Missile Defense
By Bradley Bowman & Andrew Gabel, FDD: "According to a press report last week, the Pentagon may request $500 million less than it did last year for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA)."
U.S. Air Power: The Imperative For Modernization (Buy The F-35)
By Lani Kass, Breaking Defense: "In 2006, a relatively obscure book caused a major stir among the U.S. Air Force leadership. Why Air Forces Fail, edited by Robin Higham and Stephen J. Harris, lays out the determinants of failure: deficiencies in the industrial base, misguided technology and tactical picks, inattention to logistics and neglect of training."
Rethinking Democracy Promotion And Nationalism
by Peter Berkowitz via Real Clear PoliticsThe first decade of the 21st century called into question the United States’ capacity to advance freedom and democracy abroad. The century’s second decade has provoked controversy about the relation between nationalism and liberal democracy. Greater attention to the preconditions for and impact of freedom and democracy, and to the persistence and varieties of nationalism, would contribute to the formulation of a foreign policy for the third decade of the 21st century that would be more suitable to U.S. interests and principles.
Pentagon Developing F-35s to Kill ICBMs
By Kris Osborn, Warrior Maven: “The idea would be to use F-35 weapons and sensors to detect or destroy an ICBM launch during its initial “boost” phase of upward flight toward the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere."
Arleigh Burke Flight III Production ‘On Track’
By Otto Kreisher, USNI News: "Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III program is on track, with the first ship under construction and two more under contract."
Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III program is on track, with the first ship under construction and two more under contract. But making the transition from the earlier Arleigh Burke-class destroyers has required a significant number of design changes and challenges, driven mainly by the requirement to install the powerful new Raytheon AN/SPY-6 air and missile defense radar, the program manager said on Thursday. – USNI News
China Sets a Course for the U.S.'s Pacific Domain
From Stratfor Worldview: “James Michener called the Pacific Ocean "the meeting ground for Asia and America," a world of endless ocean and "infinite specks of coral" that form a highway between east and west. Indeed, these scattered islands stretching from Papua New Guinea to Easter Island have been an important link between the two rims of the Pacific since at least the 16th century."
China’s Technology Ambitions—and Their Limits
By Gideon Lichfield, MIT Technology Review: “In November 2018 a Chinese researcher, He Jiankui, announced that he had produced the first ever gene-edited children. (MIT Technology Review was first to report that he had embarked on the attempt.) The story stunned and unnerved the world, not just because a medical taboo had been broken but because of where it had happened. It seemed to confirm China’s popular image as a country with growing technological powers and few limits on using them."
China's Rise in the Middle East: Beyond Economics
By Nicholas Lyalll, The Diplomat: “Increasing Chinese leadership in the Middle East is served by a growing interest among the region’s states to pursue the “China Model” at the expense of the “Washington Consensus” that has traditionally defined foreign economic presence in the region."
Trump meets Kim Jong Un this week. There’ll be one winner.
Nicholas Eberstadt | The New York Times
President Trump and Kim Jong Un, the ruler of North Korea, are expected to gather this week in Hanoi, Vietnam, for a second round of nuclear negotiations. Kim bested Trump at their first meeting in Singapore in June last year. And he is poised to do so again.
Nick Eberstadt explains that Kim bested Trump at their first meeting in Singapore last June, and he is poised to do so again. The reason? Kim has a strategy, and the Americans do not. Rather than pander to Kim and allow North Korea to come out ahead again, the US must resume a policy of maximum pressure worthy of the name. Learn more about what to expect here.
What to Watch as Trump-Kim II Gets Underway // Paulina Glass
As Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong Un for the second time in Hanoi, many of the same questions that hovered over the first summit remain on the table. Here’s a roundup of our coverage and commentary on the last time Trump and Kim met, and what to expect this time around:
Let’s start last March.
“The good news is that the Trump administration has adopted an approach toward North Korea that goes beyond trading insults, or missiles. They are going to talk,” wrote Mark Bowden. “The bad news? Donald Trump intends to do it himself.” (A Trump-Kim Summit: ‘Why the Hell Not?’)
Trump’s announcement that he meet with Kim was met with skepticism yet a hint of cautious optimism that this could be a fresh opportunity to bring issues to the fore that had previously been swept aside by hardline posturing and rhetoric.
Uri Friedman wrote: “The latest diplomatic opening offers a chance to better understand the enigmatic Kim regime, curb its runaway nuclear program, and address direct threats to the United States that haven’t been central to past rounds of negotiations, such as the North’s proliferation of nuclear materials to other states and non-state actors and its further development of long-range missiles.” (What’s There to Talk About With North Korea?)
The summit hinged on the idea that Trump’s North Korea strategy up to that point was working. In April, Kim had promised South Korean President Moon Jae In to limit testing and launches, and to stop spreading nuclear technology. But Ankit Panda and Adam Mount wrote that all that sweet-talking needed to be taken with a grain of salt: “The commitment itself is hardly worth the paper it is printed on...The United States cannot accept these measures as a victory—they’re a starting point for forging a verifiable cap on Pyongyang’s arsenal.” (North Korea Is Not De-Nuclearizing)
So how did the first Trump-Kim Summit go?
Not well, Friedman wrote. The most tangible results were:
But according to Trump’s Twitter, it was mission accomplished. Friedman wrote, “North Korea remains very much on the cusp of being capable of striking the U.S. with long-range nuclear missiles, if it has not already reached this milestone. And it has taken no steps to reverse this basic fact. Does Trump not know this?” (Donald Trump Actually Seems to Believe He Denuclearized North Korea)
(Friedman talked about all of this as it happened on our Defense One Radio podcast. Listen here.)
A month later, Pompeo traveled to Pyongyang.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called these follow-up conversations with his North Korean counterparts “productive”; they called them “regrettable.” Kathy Gilsinan noted a sort of backsliding in diplomatic goals that seemed to be cemented by this meeting: “If anything, the shifts toward common ground are now appearing to come from the American side, with State Department statements in recent days seeming to back off the long-standing demand for North Korea’s ‘complete, verifiable, and irreversible disarmament’ in favor of ‘fully verified, final denuclearization.’” (America and North Korea Are Having Two Different Conversations)
Friedman interviewed Cheon Seong Whun, a security adviser in the conservative administration of former South Korean President Park Geun Hye, about how the U.S.’s relationship with South Korea figured into denuclearization progress with North Korea. Park advocated for “pressuring, deterring, and defending against a nuclear-armed North Korea if Kim proves unserious about giving up his nuclear weapons” in the wake of Pompeo’s visit, which showed the need for a “moment of truth” with North Korea. (America’s Moment of Truth With North Korea Is Coming)
Meanwhile, in the intelligence community...
Reports emerged in July and August that cast doubt that North Korea was actually denuclearizing in the American sense. On the contrary, Pyongyang appeared to be scaling up its missile operations and seeking ways to conceal its progress from the U.S. Friedman examined these reports’ credibility, and cautioned that they could perhaps be read in an opposite, more optimistic way. (Two Ways to Read the Newest Intelligence on North Korea)
Later that month, a second meeting between Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart was abruptly canceled due to what Trump called insufficient progress on denuclearization. (Donald Trump Sorrowfully Cancels Another North Korea Meeting)
But that quickly thawed, and Pompeo met with North Koreans again in October.
Pompeo again described the conversations as “productive” and called for another Trump-Kim summit, ASAP. Still murky: How much progress North Korea had made towards denuclearization, and further, how the U.S. would know if it were occuring. Eric M. Brewer and Jung H. Pak demystified this in an op-ed, which ultimately argued: “The steps North Korea has taken to date, which include reportedly destroying a nuclear-weapons test site and dismantling a missile-test facility, are either reversible or have little to no technical impact, given the advanced state of its nuclear and missile programs. In essence, they are low-to-no-cost moves for Pyongyang.” (Is North Korea Denuclearizing? Here’s How We’ll Tell)
Which brings us to another Trump-Kim summit.
David Maxwell writes that the stakes are even higher this time around; a misstep could unravel the recently tense U.S.-South Korea alliance. “The summit could result in a breakthrough that would give Trump the biggest foreign-policy win of his presidency — or it could mark the beginning of a strategic disaster for the United States and South Korea.” (A Strategic Disaster Looms at the 2nd Trump-Kim Summit)
Maxwell says there are three issues to watch:
Study Looks to Define 'Industrial Base' for the Great-Power Era
// Marcus Weisgerber
Reagan Institute panel will seek to identify the technologies and workforce skills needed to confront Russia and China.
The Chinese Military Speaks to Itself, Revealing Doubts
By Dennis J. Blasko, War on the Rocks: "A large body of evidence in China’s official military and party media indicates the nation’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders recognize significant shortcomings in the warfighting and command capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)."
Strategy from the Ground Level:
Why the Experience of the U.S. Civil War Soldier Matters
By Alexandre F. Caillot, Strategy Bridge: "The lessons derived from America’s bloodiest conflict are not an isolated product of the Victorian Era—they remain just as relevant for military organizations in the twenty-first century. Strategists today should note the enduring relationship between the soldiers’ ground-level perspective and their own high-level planning."
Hybrid Warfare Represents a Threat to American Innovation
By James “Spider” Marks, RealCLearDefense: "Russia’s “investment” in Venezuelan oil, Iran’s manipulation of the Syrian War and China’s exploitation of technology all share a common theme: they represent the latest in a string of attacks against western civilization."
By Angelo M. Codevilla
Europe was never a full partner in its own defense. The very question—Will Europe ever fully partner with the U.S., or will the European Union and NATO continue to downplay the necessity of military readiness?—is no longer meaningful as posed, because the political energies of Europe’s elites are absorbed as they try to fend off attacks on their legitimacy by broad sectors of their population.
NATO Renewed (Coming Soon To A Theater Of War Near You)
By Ralph Peters
Clio, the muse of history, has a fabulous sense of irony: As the human pageant unfolds, she delights in confounding our intentions and expectations. Thus, two public enemies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (whose acronym, NATO, sounds like another Greek deity) promise to be the unwitting saviors of the alliance, rescuing it from complacency, lethargy, and diminishing relevance.
Urging More From Our NATO Allies
By Robert G. Kaufman
The United States should never expect to achieve full burden-sharing with the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Even in the most balanced alliances, the most powerful member will pay some premium for ensuring its credibility and effectiveness. The United States can strive plausibly to minimize but not eliminate the massive degree of free riding and strategic incoherence that has become politically untenable and strategically unwise.
The European Alliance That Never Was
By Angelo M. Codevilla
Europe Is Alert to the Dangers It Faces
By Kori Schake
Even Amidst Change, Europe Still Relies on the U.S. for Defense
By Barry Strauss
Europe Lacks the Will to Defend Itself
By Bing West
Read the full issue here.
Strategika's Issue 53 (U.S. Engagement with Russia).
Nyet to the Reset
by Robert G. Kaufman
Any reset with Putin’s increasingly illiberal and expansionist Russia is a triumph of hope over experience. Unrealistic realists underestimate the importance of ideology and regime type in assessing Russia’s calculus of its ambitions and interest.
A Russian Reset? Not Unless We Want To Declare Defeat.
by Peter Mansoor
It is no secret that U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest ebb since the end of the end of the Cold War in 1989. Spurred on by President Vladimir Putin’s nationalist impulses, Russia has invaded two neighboring states, Georgia and Ukraine, seized the Crimean Peninsula, and interfered in elections in the United States and various European nations. Russian cyber warriors arguably made a difference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, won by Donald Trump by the slimmest of margins—just 80,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Russian agents have used nerve agent in assassination attempts on British soil.
Another Reset with Russia? Sure, If We Accept the Unacceptable.
by Hy Rothstein
Any reset with Russia must first assess whether Russia’s policy interests are reconcilable with the interests of the U.S. and NATO. For President Putin and Russian elites, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst calamity of the 20th century. Russians have always felt a deep-seated and occasionally real sense of vulnerability from the West. For many Russians, the security dilemma is very real. Moreover, after the end of the Cold War, NATO expansion increased this perception of vulnerability beyond Russian defenses to economic and political domains as well.
Read the full issue here.
YALE'S GRAND STRATEGY DIRECTOR CHARLES HILL SPEAKS BIOGRAPHICALLY, ADDRESSES WORLD ORDER & EXAMINING US NUCLEAR COMMAND AND CONTROL ISSUES
Ep. 211: Charlie's Wars With Charles Hill
with Charles Hill via Q & A, Hosted by Jay NordlingerHoover Institution fellow Charles Hill talks about his upbringing in New Jersey, his life in the arena, his career in the academy, and the fate of the world.
Whither Nuclear Command, Control & Communications?
By Colin Clark, Breaking Defense: “Most of the system that allows the president to launch nuclear weapons and to know what the enemy is doing with theirs is ancient. No one yet agrees what it must replaced with. And no one knows how much it will cost, although late last month the Congressional Budget Office issued an estimate of $77 billion."
The United States and World Order
By Colin S. Gray, National Institute for Public Policy: “With very few exceptions the United States plays a dominant leadership role just about everywhere. This condition warrants the description hegemonic (from the Greek) so considerable is the country’s lead internationally in most of the true foundations of power. With few exceptions, this American dominance has been a source of enormous net benefit to the world at large. In common with many other powers, even the United States has a few notable weaknesses, some of them, when regarded ironically, being largely a consequence of its relative greatness.”
The future of arms control is global
(War On The Rocks) In the United States, discussion of Indo-Pacific nuclear weapons issues often centers on how existing and developing nuclear weapon capabilities in the region affect U.S. strategic calculations.
WILL AUSTRALIA GO TO CHINA? HOW CHINESE AMBITIONS TO DESTROY "THE QUAD" ARE WORKING; NET ASSESSMENT & ARMS CONTROL FOR THE INDO-PACIFIC
Confronting the Flaws in America's Indo-Pacific Strategy by Jean-Loup Samaan
Building The Air Force We Need To Meet Chinese And Russian Threats
(Forbes) For the first time in a generation, America’s global interests are at risk.
"Australia’s Great Strategic Transition
Australia is about to embark upon only its second strategic “course correction” since Federation in 1901. But it has yet to determine a destination, or to plot a course.
Analysis. By the Canberra staff of GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs. Few question the place of Australia in the strategic firmament. It is an economically and militarily strong part of “the West”. And yet it is now, for only the second time in its independent history, beginning to move onto a new strategic path.
It is a path yet to be plotted to a destination yet to be envisioned. It is only the second time in the country’s independent history — in the 116 years since Federation in 1901 — that it has so clearly begun such a move.
What are the headline aspects?
• Australia’s relationship with the US has already changed, and will change further. It is — although the US may not yet recognize it — evolving into a more balanced relationship;
• Australia will be forced to seek a far more nuanced balance among a variety of allies, neighbors, and trading partners;
• Australia will be forced to seek more balanced trading and economic models, given the evolution away from zero-architecture globalism;
• Australia will have to move rapidly away from its belief that it can be sustained primarily by a service economy;
• Australia will need to define its identity and grand strategic objectives or else face growing internal polarization and focused Indo-Pacific challenges.
Significantly, the strategic evolution of Australia is not overtly linked to changes which were announced in July 2017 in Canberra, creating some new framework elements for Australia’s national security and intelligence communities. It is a sea-change, nonetheless, even though it has yet to be formally recognized by the Government, the Defence community, or the public.
Rather, the changes being evidenced in the national security system are unconsciously reflective of (and reflexive to) the transforming context, not the other way around.
The first shift, from strategic dependence on and alliance with the United Kingdom, to dependence on and alliance with the United States, reached a tipping point in about 1962. The signs of that shift began to be evident in World War II, as Britain’s position East of Suez began to crumble (particularly with the lost of Singapore by February 15, 1942). By May 8, 1942, with the US-Australian forces fighting the Battle of the Coral Sea, the course had become, perhaps, inevitable.
The Future of Arms Control is Global: Reconsidering Nuclear Issues in the Indo-Pacific by Andy Weber and Christine Parthemore
Say It With Statues: Brick-and-Mortar Revisionism in Orban's Hungary by Vivian S. Walker
New Net Assessment: To Intervene or Not to Intervene? That is the Question by Melanie Marlowe, Bryan McGrath, and Christopher Preble
The Fundamentals of the Quad
By Walter Lohman, The Strategist (ASPI): “The most important thing that unites the Quad countries, however, is an awareness that managing the rise of China is the defining challenge of our era.
Is China about to abandon its ‘no first use’ nuclear weapons policy?
(South China Morning Post) China might come under pressure to reconsider its long-standing “no first use” nuclear policy as it engages in a maritime arms race with the United States, analysts have warned.
Strengthening the Nuclear Order
By Rod Lyon, The Strategist (ASPI): “The current nuclear order, at least as we’ve come to understand it since 1945, is fraying. That might not matter if a post-nuclear world were close, but the world’s in no shape to make the sudden leap towards nuclear abolition."